Tuesday, 24 March 1987 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Leader of the House and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) is absent until 27 March on official duty in New Zealand. Any questions normally directed to Mr Young should be directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) is Acting Leader of the House. As a matter of courtesy, I also inform the House that the Minister for Aviation and Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) is absent today on Government business. Questions for Mr Morris should be addressed to the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes). Mr COLEMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Minister will recall his statements last January that he would not allow representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organisation to visit Australia because that organisation is committed to violence. In the light of that principle, will the Minister explain to the House why the Government has invited the leader of the African National Congress, Mr Tambo, to Australia? Mr HAYDEN —To the extent that we are guilty people for inviting Oliver Tambo to come to Australia as a guest of the government, may I say that we stand in impressive company. He has sat down with George Shultz, the Secretary of State of the United States of America, to discuss matters of common concern. After he has visited Australia, he will visit New Zealand, Japan and Canada. I feel neither embarrassment nor discomfort. Mr SNOW —I ask: Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the likely effects of conti-nued fiscal restraint on the interest rate regime? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Eden-Monaro for his question. The House will recall that on a number of occasions I have reminded the House that in our four years in government we have reduced the Budget deficit as a proportion of gross domestic product from the 5 per cent that we inherited to 11/2 per cent this financial year. A further reduction in this ratio, which will occur as a result of both the May statement and the August Budget, we believe will help to create the conditions for a fall in the interest rate regime over the course of this year as the current account improves and as general financial market conditions permit. I remind the honourable member that this year's deficit of around $3.5 billion is tiny, is minuscule, compared with the huge deficit promised by the Leader of the Opposition. I understand, and I have no doubt that the honourable member will recall this, that the Leader of the Opposition whipped himself into a frenzy of indignation yesterday, claiming in a personal explanation that I had misrepresented him in referring to his $16 billion credibility gap. For the benefit of honourable members, and most parti-cularly for the honourable member for Bennelong, I take this opportunity to detail briefly how the $16 billion credibility gap has been wrapped up by the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues. Let me just quickly go through them, Madam Speaker. Mr Spender —I rise on a point of order. Madam Speaker, I remind you that on 9 September 1981 when Mr Anthony was answering a question in this House, you intervened and said this: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the Hansard of 27 August. You ruled: The Minister will answer the question and not engage in irrelevancies such as contrasting the Government and the Labor Party. That is precisely what the Prime Minister is seeking to do here. The Speaker replied: I think it was a very sound decision. I ask the right honourable gentleman to draw his answer to a conclusion. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Would the honourable member now resume his seat. Mr Spender —If it was good enough, Madam Speaker, for you to make the point of order when you were in opposition, it should apply here. Madam SPEAKER —The Prime Minister has just started on his answer. The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Uren —I rise on a point of order. The honourable member for North Sydney consistently interrupts the Prime Minister. Madam Speaker, I draw to your attention the tradition of this Parliament that both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have certain privileges and have been given leniency by all the Speakers through the times that I have been here. Madam SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The Chair has constantly given a certain latitude to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party, and will continue to do so. Mr HAWKE —One can understand the concern, but I simply want to recite the facts. I was saying that I would detail briefly how the $16 billion credibility gap has been racked up by the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues. Firstly, the reversal of our 1985 tax reforms, such as the fringe benefits tax-- Mr Spender —Madam Speaker, I repeat the point of order which I made and on which I do not believe you made a ruling. Madam SPEAKER —I point out to the honourable member for North Sydney that I find the Prime Minister in order at this stage. Mr Spender —And relevant? Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr HAWKE —Firstly, the reversal of Labor's 1985 tax reforms such as the fringe benefits tax, the non-deductibility of businessmen's free lunches, negative gearing and the capital gains tax amounts to $1,345m. Further unrepudiated tax promises, including income splitting, child care rebates, removal of lump sum superannuation tax, repeal of wine tax and the abolition of fuel excise indexation amount to $3,840m. The cost of revenue of a 12-month wage freeze will be $500m. Reduction in personal and company tax rates will account for $8,870m, the repeal of the assets test for $160m and the removal of the existing Budget deficit for $3,500m. If we offset the tax promises by broadening the indirect tax base now that the consumption tax is dead we get a maximum amount of $2,000m. Therefrom we get the John Howard credibility gap of $16,215m. So that the Leader of the Opposition might respond in a media statement, which he has refused to do to date in spite of repeated pleas by my colleague, the Treasurer, I seek leave to table a detailed list of these commitments. Madam SPEAKER —The Prime Minister does not need leave. Mr HAWKE —I do that so the Leader of the Opposition may repudiate them. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from Poland led by Mr Rakowski, Deputy Speaker of the same. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to the members of the delegation. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr HAWKER —My question is to the Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices. In his interview with Mr Laurie Oakes on Channel 9 the Sunday before last, the Minister agreed with Mr Oakes that the power of persuasion is the primary power he has at this stage in his responsibilities as Minister Assisting the Treasurer on Prices. I ask the Minister: If his powers of persuasion prove ineffectual, what is the next stage in his Don Quixote ride against rising prices? Mr BARRY JONES —Don Quixote never lacked the support of a donkey. I am not discouraged by the slightly negative and sceptical response in certain segments of the Parliament or indeed in the Press Gallery. The most effective role that can be played in the job given to me by the Prime Minister is to restore consumer sovereignty, by creating a situation where individual consumers are able to be adequately informed so that they can make appropriate decisions for themselves about choosing where they shop and the range of goods that they want to acquire. As I said the other day, it is astonishing that to some extent we are all disciples of Adam Smith nowadays. Remember, Smith said that market forces have to operate on the basis of perfect information. Now, there is not perfect information so that consumers can make appropriate choices for themselves. I am impressed by the success of the price watch committees set up now in more than 30 Federal electorates. They are creating a situation where the consumer says: `It suits my interest to be able to go to shop A rather than shop B for particular lines of merchandise'. People then have to decide for themselves whether the marginal convenience of getting all their goods in one supermarket outweighs getting a more competitive price somewhere else. The cynicism with which this exercise has been approached by members of the Opposition suggests that they have an absolute contempt for consumers and that they have an absolute contempt for people at the lower end of the socio-economic pyramid, those people who are on fixed incomes and pensions and to whom a small variant in the price of the goods that they buy for their families is very significant. As far as we are concerned, we will continue. I have got every confidence that there will be close co-operation with all State administrations, and I specifically include the Queensland and Tasmanian governments as well. Unfortunately, Mr Dale, the Northern Territory Minister, is in New Zealand and I have not been able to talk to him yet. But there is a recognition that State by State people in their own communities, local areas and towns are worried by price levels and are grateful for the kind of information which enables them to get the best return and which brings fairness into the market-place. Honourable members opposite all recognise the need for restraint in the price of labour. Goods are just another area where price restraint should be applied. Equity demands that, if we have that restraint in prices for labour, it ought to apply to goods as well. As a result, I believe we will continue with success. The job is partly a matter of persuasion, partly a matter of information and partly a matter of co-ordination. I am looking forward to strong support from the Prices Surveillance Authority and the new Consumer Affairs Bureau, the main point of which is to make sure that people get better value for money out of their goods. It is not just a matter of price; it is also a matter of asking `Is the quality there? Are the goods fresh? Is there proper dating for the commodities with a limited shelf life?', and so on. I believe that we can achieve a great deal. I believe that the sincerity with which we are doing it is recognised by the voters in the community. Mr BILNEY —Can the Treasurer inform the House whether it is a correct response to Australia's present adverse international trading circumstances to reduce public sector spending? Further, what evidence is there of a growing community consensus to this view? Mr KEATING —At a time when Australia is suffering from a very dramatic decline in the terms of trade, one of the obvious things that Australia should do is to try to rebalance its external accounts by producing more, importing less and producing more for export. The way this should happen is to essentially lift investment in Australia and the capital stock in plant and equipment and to make the country more competitive. That can best happen by diminishing the call upon Australian savings at least by the public sector-that is, the Commonwealth and the States-so that that investment may be able to take place. Getting this country interested in the importance of fiscal policy and fiscal rectitude has been a very difficult problem for the Government, given the fact that the former Government was so reckless with fiscal policy. We are seeing, in the face of this whole structure of discipline which the Government has erected across fiscal wages and monetary policy, a return of that recklessness which is diminishing again, or seeking to diminish, of having caused to diminish, the respect in which the public holds decent fiscal policy. Yesterday the Opposition released a package of proposed savings measures, supposedly totalling $5 billion, which in fact totalled $2.3m net of asset sales. Within eight hours that package had diminished considerably, as a number of spokespersons jumped out of it. Yesterday on the Reuters screen we had from the Leader of the Opposition, in what was an attempt, again, to at least display some sort of toughness to the financial markets, the statement that his staff had defended the leaking of a secret report showing that he would make a giant spending cut if elected Prime Minister. The statement went on to say: . . . in his first week as Prime Minister Howard would slash $2 billion in public spending . . . He would put the axe through a range of community programs. I have the report from the Reuters screen in front of me. That report is going all around Australia and the world. This was accompanied by the following language on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's AM program: I don't offer pie in the sky I mean what I say and frankly I see it as a virtue and not a vice in our present economic circumstances to be committed to heavy expenditure cuts. The Leader of the Opposition went on to say on Willesee-I invite honourable members to listen to this classic: . . . I have never in my political life been unwilling to do a difficult or unpopular thing. I don't think anybody who aspires to be Prime Minister of this country, if they can't do difficult unpopular things on occasions, then they're not worth the job. What about financial deregulation and the floating of the exchange rate? He was the supposed author of it all. He hankered after a consumption tax during all the years he was Treasurer. What about the back-down at Blackwater-the show-down at Blackwater on the fringe benefits tax? What about the collapse of his strength with the 1982 Budget? When have we seen from this man as the Treasurer any strength or willingness to take unpopular decisions? Mr Carlton —Telling lies again. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw that comment. Mr Carlton —I withdraw. Mr KEATING —He is more to be pitied than despised, so do not worry about him, Madam Speaker. In eight hours the Opposition's $2.3 billion package yesterday shrank to $845m as Opposition members all jumped out. It was in the market for about eight hours and they were all jumping out, trying to leave it behind-I was going to say `like rats leaving a sinking ship', but that would probably be unparliamentary. The fact is that everybody is jumping out now. The Leader of the Opposition and his Party fold in the face of any pressure. They could never change fiscal policy. As the Prime Minister says, there is a $16 billion credibility gap which day after day we instance the detail of here. I have given these instances, each with annotations, with the references to where the statements were made, and I invited the Leader of the Opposition to repudiate them in writing if he wished. Mr Howard —Ooh. Mr KEATING —Wait until Opposition members tell the financial markets Ooh. Honourable members should go to the financial markets to see what they have to say about their $16 billion worth of commitments. They will look at all these backdowns and they will see-- Mr Reith —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I invite you, Madam Speaker, to use your powers of persuasion to encourage the Treasurer to limit his answers so that members of our back bench and members on the Government side can have an opportunity to ask a question at Question Time. Madam SPEAKER —There are a number of points of order raised during Question Time, quite often the same ones. However, I draw the attention of the House to standing order 55. I ask that all honourable members read it and observe it. Mr KEATING —I do not need to go on too long to make this point: The so-called tough talking Leader of the Opposition always collapses at the first whiff of grapeshot across the trench from the public. The reason why fiscal policy got away when he was Treasurer is the same reason why fiscal policy would get away if he happened to be Prime Minister. All he is doing by promising $16 billion of tax changes and outlays changes is dismantling, or seeking to dismantle, or causing to see dismantled the whole respect for fiscal policy and the importance of fiscal policy in the management of this country. Let me repeat the Prime Minister's request, and my request of a week earlier, that the Leader of the Opposition repudiate the line by line points we have made to him and that he tell us where the Opposition stands on his tax commitments, or whether we will really see pensions cut so that he can abolish the capital gains tax or the fringe benefits tax, so he can put money back into the hands of millionaires at the expense of pensioners. It is about time that the Opposition came clean and started to act tough and realise that Australia has real economic troubles which cannot be belaboured or added to by the tomfoolery and weakness of the Opposition. Mr McGAURAN —I direct my question to the Minister for Primary Industry and reface it by reminding the Minister of the memorandum of understanding which exists between the Australian and New Zealand governments as well as the respective dairy industries which restrains New Zealand dairy imports. I ask the Minister: Will the memorandum apply to any successful Department of Defence tender for dairy products or will this part of closer economic relations be abrogated and additional imports allowed? I further ask: Is the Minister considering either the termination or amendment of the memorandum at the CER review next year? Mr KERIN —The Australian-New Zealand closer economic relations trade agreement was negotiated by the former Leader of the National Party and former Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony. When we came to office we signed it. That was negotiated over quite a period. The arrangements between the two countries in trade in dairy products were all clearly set out. What the honourable member is partly referring to is that New Zealanders are eligible to tender for defence contracts for dairy products. That was always in the agreement and one would expect that while the agreement is in force that will remain in it. Part of the agreement centred on a memorandum of understanding between the two countries. When there are problems in dairy trade they will be settled either at the Australian Dairy Corporation to New Zealand Dairy Produce Board level or at the industry to industry level. While there are always tensions and frictions in those discussions, the problems have always been ironed out. The New Zealanders are sticking to their side of the bargain with respect to cheese imports into the country; that is, they have a percentage share of the growth in the market from the basis of a fixed percentage determined at the time. Mr Lloyd —Does that include a defence tender on cheese? Mr KERIN —I just covered that. That is already in the agreement. With the relative currency values between the two countries it is seen as pretty likely that there will be no development in trade. If we are talking about cheese, it is already covered by that part of the agreement whereby New Zealand is honouring the share of the trade between the two countries. I have recently written to Mr Saunders of the United Dairyfarmers of Victoria on that matter. I am quite happy to clarify the matter for the honourable member, but I point out that at the end of the day we cannot go around the world lecturing the world on the need for freer agricultural trade and being involved in a free trade agreement with our closest neighbour that has expanded exports in agricultural products between the two countries both ways by 90 per cent and then walk away from it because of a bit of gutlessness or pressure from the farm sector. The agreement overall is working. Where there are tensions and frictions they can be resolved, if necessary, at the ministerial level. All these matters can be thrashed out in ongoing discussions between the two countries. This is basically a bit of agropolitical hype which honourable members opposite do not seem to be able to resist or explain truthfully. Mr GEAR —Has the attention of the Minister for Communications been drawn to newspaper reports about an alleged telephone conversation between the Victorian Liberal Leader, Mr Kennett, and the honourable member for Kooyong, Mr Peacock? In particular, has he noticed the excessive use of obscene language? Can the Minister inform the House if the use of obscene language is an offence under the Telecommunications Act? Mr DUFFY —I thank the honourable member for Canning for his question. The only section in the Telecommunications Act which could be regarded as covering abusive language is section 86 (c), which states: A person shall not- (c) without reasonable excuse, send over a telecommunications system a communication or information likely to cause reasonable persons, justifiably in all the circumstances, to be seriously alarmed or seriously affronted. The penalty under that section is $1,000 or imprisonment for six months, or both. Mr Hawke —Or the loss of your shadow Cabinet position. Mr DUFFY —As the Prime Minister interjects, or the loss of your shadow Cabinet position. The above section was introduced by an amendment in 1985, but I must say to honourable members that the question as to whether a particular case involving abusive or offensive language over the telephone is an offence under the Telecommunications Act would have to be determined by the Director of Public Prosecutions. We in this Government are very satisfied with and proud of the separate arm of government and the arrangements which operate in relation to prosecutions. It is not for me to offer any advice to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions; nor is it for the Attorney-General- nor would he. Nevertheless, one has to conjecture on the section of the Act as to reasonable persons, having regard to the conversation that took place, and who it would have been who was seriously alarmed or affronted. One has to take the view, knowing the honourable member for Kooyong, that the language would not have seriously alarmed him or affronted him. He seemed to give as good as he got. I would have thought the Victorian Leader of the Opposition might have been excluded by the `reasonable persons' part of the Act. Finally, I suppose the only person at this stage who appears to be seriously alarmed or affronted is the Leader of the Opposition and it is difficult to see how he could become a party to such a prosecution. Mr JULL —My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. What instructions have been given to Australian Immigration personnel in South Africa and Zimbabwe concerning the issuing of visitor and migrant visas to Australia for South African residents? Has an instruction been given that representations from Australian parliamentarians on visa issuance be not accepted by Immigration personnel at those posts, even if they are on humanitarian grounds and when Australian families are involved? Is there now a 27-week wait for visa issuance at these ports? Will the Minister do anything to resolve the situation? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question. No such instructions have been issued. There is a considerable wait as a result of Government policy dealing with applications from South Africa, but certainly while I have been dealing with these matters as Minister Assisting I have received representations from members on both sides and there is certainly no instruction, either from the Minister or from anywhere else, which suggests the usual representations that come from honourable members or other prominent citizens will not be dealt with. Dr KLUGMAN —I note the Prime Minister's proud report yesterday regarding the greatly increased retention rate of students, but has the Prime Minister noted the relatively high number of Australians who are apparently impressed by the ability of such diverse persons as the Premier of Queensland, the honourable member for Kooyong and the lead singer of Midnight Oil to deal with Australia's many problems? Is this not a sign of the failure of the Australian education system to teach students to think rationally and critically? Does he share my feeling of depression about this and will he ask schools and tertiary institutions to encourage the spirit of critical inquiry? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Prospect for his question without notice. I would simply say that what is happening in Australian politics with the sorts of people to whom the honourable member referred getting some prominence is not, I believe, a reflection on the Australian education system so much as a reflection upon the total failure of the official and formal Opposition to discharge its function of providing a credible and constructive Opposition. In life, whether it is in politics or in any other sphere, if a vacuum emerges something will come through to fill it. If the Opposition in this country-whether it was under the honourable member for Kooyong as leader, or, after he was spilled out, the honourable member for Bennelong-in the last four years had performed its task of addressing itself contructively to the issues confronting this country one would not have heard of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen or the New Right. But because the Opposition has lamentably failed in the discharge of its duty, because it has not made its contribution to the functioning of parliamentary democracy, it is in that context that one has the Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersens, the New Right and others emerging. It will not be until this Opposition, under this Leader or whoever replaces him, whenever that may be, starts doing its job that this parliamentary democracy will function as it should. It may be seen by some that we revel in the lamentable chaos of the other side. I believe that I speak for all members on this side of the House in saying that we would like to see a better and more constructive Opposition. However, that will not occur while this Leader of the Opposition stays there. He has nothing to offer this country. All he seems to be able to do is to elevate the exercise of jumping at shadows into a fine art form. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I direct my question to the Minister for science, prices and consumer sovereignty. Will the Minister accept as perfect information that in the last two years the Department of Communications has increased the licence fee for the base station of VHF radio or two-way radio from $185 in 1985 to $240 in 1986 and then to $380 in 1987-an average increase of more than 100 per cent? Is the Minister aware that mainly small businesses, such as real estate agents, plumbers, electricians and the like, are the main users of two-way radio for commercial purposes? How can the Government justify an abhorrence of rising prices applied by the private sector when the Government itself is obviously very much to blame for cost increases and pays but lip service to leading by example? Mr DUFFY —There has been a deluge of correspondence in recent times regarding the increases in charges for the use of the spectrum, which may well have been motivated in some ways by the honourable member. Whilst it is recognised that what he says is correct-that the spectrum is put to use businesses and that it is necessary to keep charges as low as possible-from recollection, the increases referred to are in the order of 33 per cent. When one looks at the question of cost recovery for the management of the spectrum, the charges are considered to be reasonable. In regard to the litany of Opposition cuts, which the Prime Minister so graphically outlined today, as did the Treasurer yesterday, it would be interesting to know whether the Opposition will not be saying that this is another area in which it is going to cut expenditure. That is, will we have no management control of the spectrum and have the sort of chaos which some of the more ridiculous proposals in the Opposition's communications policy, if it ever surfaces, would be likely to cause? Mr DUNCAN —I address my question to the Minister for Health. Did the Minister read the disturbing article in the Times on Sunday of 8 March expressing the growing health concerns relating to aspartame or NutraSweet in the United States, especially in relation to pregnant women, children and people with neurological disorders? Did he see reference in that article to the conference being organised by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Brain Function and Metabolism in Washington on 8 and 9 May? Will the Minister ensure that an appropriate, qualified Government official attends the conference, especially in view of the recent launch of aspartame under the NutraSweet label in Australia? In the meantime, will the Minister restrict the wider use of aspartame in Australia until these health issues have been resolved? Dr BLEWETT —I recognise the longstanding concern of the honourable member for Makin with consumer issues, both in this Parliament and in the work he did in that area in South Australia. I have seen the article to which he refers. I was not aware of that conference and at this moment there is no plan for departmental representation. I am informed by the National Health and Medical Research Council that each application for the use of these food additives is assessed for technological need and safety by the specialist food committee of the NHMRC. Recommendations by that Council are then referred to the States for implementation. Aspartame has been recommended by the NHMRC for use in a restricted range of foods in Australia-low joule foods, brewed soft drinks and carbohydrate modified chewing gum. It is used in that restricted area of foods. It should be known that people born with the condition known as phenylketonuria are not able to metabolise aspartame and so foods containing this substance are required to be labelled with the statement `Phenylketonurics: Contains phenylalenine', to warn this group of people. However, the NHMRC is aware of the concerns being raised about the safety of aspartame in the wider community. We are closely monitoring developments, particularly in the United States of America. We will follow the conference quite closely and I will inform the honourable member of any further developments. Mr REITH —My question is to the Minister for Science. I refer him to the services provided to Australian industry by the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories and to the fact that its private sector clients are now charged on a cost recovery basis. I ask: Is it a fact that revenue for 1986-87 was estimated in the last Budget to increase from $1.9m to $5.8m? Would he expect that Australian companies utilising these services would pass their costs on to their customers? Is this an example where price increases can be directly attributable to policy decisions of his Government? Lastly, what action does he propose to overcome Government induced price increases such as these? Mr BARRY JONES —Certainly there has been an increase in price levels for the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories. This followed in part the recommendations of the Ross Inquiry into Commonwealth Laboratories which honourable members may recall was set up by the Fraser Government as one of the recommendations of the razor gang presided over by Sir Phillip Lynch. We have carried out precisely the recommendations of the Ross committee, which I thought would have bipartisan support. Notoriously, we have had a period of acute budget stringency in the last few years. Seeking cost recovery from that area of the economy serviced by AGAL seems quite rational. Mr Kerin —Hear, hear! Mr BARRY JONES —I notice a hearty endorsement from the Minister for Primary Industry. I would have expected it. We have discussed it very often. We recognise that for the future there has to be a self-denying ordinance of price restraint. It would be absurd and hypocritical if we applied different criteria in urging restraint where Commonwealth instrumentalities are charging fees from the standard applied to State governments and in what we suggest to industry generally. I recognise the need for restraint. I expect that we can maintain this level of restraint following the next Budget round. Mr Mildren having addressed a question to the Minister for Science- Mr Spender-I take a point of order-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The question is out of order. Dr Watson proceeding to ask a question of the Treasurer- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is out of order. He may not ask for an opinion. Mr ALLAN MORRIS —Will the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations inform the House of the level of growth in employment in the current financial year and how that growth compares with Budget projections? Mr WILLIS —I am very pleased that despite very difficult economic times with which the Government has been grappling in the last 18 months we have been able to maintain employment growth very well. That growth this financial year will be well in excess of the Budget forecast. As honourable members would be aware, in the last financial year 1985-86 we had extremely strong growth of employment but in the middle of calendar year 1986 employment growth sagged for a couple of months. Since the Budget, however, there has been a gradual strengthening of the labour market, a fact which has also been shown in the national accounts with the recovery of the economy evident in the December quarter. As a result of that growth in the labour market since the Budget, we now have an additional 97,600 jobs since that Budget-in the six months from August to February-which is a growth of virtually 100,000 additional jobs. The questioner also asked about the Budget forecasts. The employment forecast in the Budget was for growth in 1986-87 over 1985-86 of one and three quarter per cent. We have already reached that point. Indeed, if there were no further growth in employment this financial year from the month of February, we would have growth in 1986-87 over 1985-86 of 2.1 per cent. As we expect further growth in employment in the course of the rest of this financial year I think I can say to the House that we can be very sure that we will have an outcome in employment well in excess of the Budget forecast. This shows that the Government's very good record on employment is continuing. As honourable members will be aware, since we have been in office there has been employment growth of 738,000 or 11.7 per cent, which is not only the faster rate of growth of employment of any country in the Western developed world in that period but also represents-and I would like honourable members opposite to take particular note of this-a growth in employment of a massive 400,000 more jobs than the Fraser Government was able to produce in seven and a quarter years. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of parliamentary pro- cedure. During Question Time the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) made a remark by way of interjection which was clearly heard at our end of the chamber in which he suggested that I should go back to getting my fingers in the local government till. In the light of the events of recent times, namely 23 February, and your remarks that you will not tolerate from either side allegations or imputations of a personal nature, considering that the Leader of the House (Mr Young) has now told us that a withdrawal or an apology is insufficient as `the damage is done'-which is on page 582 of Hansard-and considering that on page 497 of Hansard we have established that the failure to hear a particular remark is not necessarily relevant, I advise you that this remark is both untrue and deeply offensive to me and, in the light of your remark and treatment of me as recorded upon pages 496 and 497 of Hansard when I was dealt with in the process of stating 23 words, I request that you act against the honourable member for Melbourne in similar fashion. Madam SPEAKER —I point out to the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) that when he was suspended from the service of the House it was not so much for what he said but for persistently and wilfully refusing to accept the authority of the Chair. I now ask the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) to withdraw the words he said that I did not hear. The honourable member for Melbourne is being asked by the Chair to withdraw a comment he made which the Chair did not hear but which was evidently audible in that part of the House. Mr Hand —Madam Speaker, I seek leave and advice from you to explain why I said it. Madam SPEAKER —No, the Chair is asking for a withdrawal. The Chair is advising the honourable member for Melbourne-- Mr Hand —I will withdraw, but there will be ample opportunity for me to say what I have to say. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 41 of the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984, I present the annual report of the Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority for 1985-86. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister for Social Security seeks the indulgence of the Chair to make a personal explanation. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security) —Yes. I claim to have been misrepresented. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr HOWE —Relating to Question Time yesterday, but at a later time, the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) made a personal explanation which concluded with two quotations. He stated: I hope that the House has noted that, and when the Minister comes into this House in future and misrepresents me-- Following some words from the Deputy Speaker he stated: I would like to point out to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to the House that the comments I made were not related to one another; they were completely separate. I object to those words being tied together and used against me in this place. If I could just indicate that the honourable member for Maranoa in the course of his remarks indicated that he did not have a transcript of a certain radio interview. All I would like to do is to explain, by way of personal explanation, where I have been misrepresented. Essentially the misrepresentation is that the honourable member either did not say the words that I suggested that he might have said or, if he did say the words, they were unrelated. I want to specifically quote from the transcript. He made two relevant statements-- Mr Ian Cameron —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. The words I used yesterday were from Hansard and they were the words which the Minister spoke into Hansard. Madam SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member wishes to make a personal explanation he will have the indulgence of the Chair to do so when the Minister has completed his remarks, which I ask him to do without losing any time. Mr HOWE —I simply want to quote from the transcript which I had quoted from at an earlier Question Time. The honourable member for Maranoa said: . . . when I say cuts I mean cuts that every Australian is going to squeal like a stuck pig . . . I take that to include pensioners. The second quotation further down as part of the same transcript-- Mr Ian Cameron —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will sit down. I will call him when the Minister has finished. Mr Ian Cameron —This is not a personal explanation-- Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will sit down. The Minister has completed his personal explanation, I hope. Mr HOWE —No, I have got one other quotation, Madam Speaker. Mr Cadman —This is not a personal explanation at all. Mr HOWE —Those opposite just cannot take it. The interviewer asked the question: What about pensions? The answer was: Pensions, I guess the pensioners might have to stand still . . . there's no reason why we should be giving pensioners or anybody else in the community any more funds. Madam SPEAKER —The Minister will now resume his seat. Mr HOWE —I conclude with these words. Madam SPEAKER —No, the Minister will resume his seat. Mr HOWE —The context was a statement emanating from the Liberal Party that would freeze pensions. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Minister is now debating the issue. I suggest that the Minister heed the Chair. Does the honourable member for Maranoa wish to make a personal explanation? Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa) —Yes, Madam Speaker. The words I used yesterday were the words of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) which were recorded in Hansard. There is absolutely no reason why he should have to come back into this House today and repeat those remarks to you. There is absolutely no reason why he should be-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. He has made his point, and it is not a personal explanation either. I suggest to all honourable members that they look at the Standing Orders that they are so fond of quoting and work out for themselves what a personal explanation is. An honourable member needs to have been personally misrepresented. That seems pretty clear to me. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security) —by leave-This year will see the start of a system to ensure a new deal for children of separated and divorced parents. When fully developed it will be one of the most effective systems of child support in the world using-administrative assessments; judicial discretion in disputed cases; and automatic income withholding to benefit children who are not cared for by both parents. The Government recognises that child support is an area of great community concern. All of us on both sides of the House know that the present system is unfair and ineffective. More than 70 per cent of parents, no longer living with their children, simply do not pay regular maintenance. Inadequate support by non-custodial parents contributes to the poverty of children living in Australia's sole parent families. It also contributes to the heavy demand on our social security system. Changes in Australian society over the past decade or so have had significant implications for appropriate child support arrangements. Between 1974 and 1985 the number of sole parent families increased by 73 per cent, from 183,000 to 316,000. The overwhelming majority of cases are the result of marriage breakdown or a split in de facto relationships. So most of the children in those families come from homes where two parents once shared the responsibility for expenses and care. Unfortunately, we have seen a situation develop where too many parents who no longer share a home with their children now fail to share their income with those children. All too often these parents no longer support their children the way they used to, and the responsibility falls to the social security system. As the proportion of sole parent families has increased over the past decade, so has the proportion reliant on social security. The proportion of sole parents on a pension or benefit increased from 65 per cent to 85 per cent over the past decade. Currently, there are more than 250,000 lone parents on benefits caring for 450,000 children. For most of those households the pension or benefit is their only source of income. This Government decided to take action on this issue and placed a priority on child support reform-to reduce the number of children in poverty, and to ensure that parents face up to their responsibilities to their children. The Government's intention to reform child maintenance arrangements was announced in the 1986 Budget Speech. Its proposals for reform were detailed in `Child support: A discussion paper on child maintenance', released for public comment in October 1986. In the community consultation which followed there was overwhelming support for the need to reform the currently inadequate child maintenance arrangements. The specific objectives of the proposal also received wide support. They are: Firstly, that non-custodial parents should share the cost of supporting their children according to their capacity to pay; secondly, that adequate support be available for all children of separated parents; thirdly, that Commonwealth expenditure be limited to what is necessary to ensure that those needs be met; fourthly, to ensure that neither parent is discouraged from participating in the work force; and, fifthly, that the overall arrangements should be simple, flexible, efficient and respect personal privacy. After close examination, the Government agreed that major changes were required to ensure meaningful improvements in the living standards of children, and to facilitate the regular payment of support. We have responded to the complexity of child support reform with sensitivity and concern. And as a result the Government has decided to introduce its reform in stages. Stage 1 in 1987 will introduce legislation to establish the Child Support Agency to collect child maintenance, and to amend the Family Law Act to assent the priority of child maintenance, to make sure that court orders put the financial position of children ahead of everything except the essential commitments of the parents, and to remove reference to social security eligibility to make clear that child support should not be treated as a `top-up' to social security pensions and benefits. The current system has for too long awarded inadequate levels of child support. The social security system has been burdened with this responsibility. Stage 2 in 1988 will introduce legislation for a formula to calculate maintenance as part of the Child Support Agency's administrative process under the Commissioner of Taxation. The legislation to establish the Child Support Agency will be passed this year. It will come into effect as soon as the necessary administrative arrangements can be put in place. The Agency will be able to collect all maintenance orders issued to couples who separate after the date of its establishment. It will also be able to collect orders made in respect of children born after that date, where the parents have not cohabited. Pensioners who already have an order can go to the Agency to have that order collected. The Agency will also collect orders made after commencement of the Agency for all custodial parents who are social security pensioners on the day they get the court order. The Government is determined to give the scheme as wide an operation as possible so we will investigate the feasibility of including any periodic child mainenance obligation that could be enforced under the Family Law Act. This includes obligations in ageeements registered or approved under the Family Law Act; overseas maintenance orders; and orders under the law of one State being enforced in another State. Further, for the first time since 1961 the maintenance of step children will be dealt with under the same laws as the maintenance of their step brothers and sisters. This has been made possible by the historic agreement of the States of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania to refer constitutional powers on the question to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth will consult with the States on the future of the present arrangements which govern the collection of child support by State bodies. With State agreement the Agency will take over the collection of all maintenance orders which are lodged for collection with those State bodies as those bodies are phased out. The Government will set up a consultative group as soon as possible to advise the Government on the introduction of a legislative formula. The consultative group will provide a mechanism for refining the formula, to monitor the impact of stage 1 and to advise the Government of the role of counselling in maintenance assessment. The composition of the group will be announced in the near future. It became clear during our community consultations that certain issues concerning the legislative formula needed to be addressed with particular care. In particular, there was concern that the current family law practice of allowing parents to substitute housing or other provisions for maintenance should be allowed to continue in cases where this may best meet the needs of the family. There was also a view that, in some circumstances, the legislative formula should take into account the income of the custodial parent. The Government's consultative group will examine the specifics of the formula to take account of these critical issues. As always when the emotional question of child support is raised we have aimed to ensure that all interested parties have the chance to help shape a new system which will affect so many families at a very sensitive time in their lives. The proposed timetable will give us some flexibility in refining the final stages of the new scheme while allowing people to adjust to the new procedures. The overseas experience is that the introduction of legislative formula and administrative assessment has proven to be a successful and effective reform but it is very clear that people overseas have needed time to adjust to the changeover from a discretionary court-based system. For this reason the Australian Government has decided on a two-stage reform to allow a smooth transition to the new scheme. The Government did consider alternative and less major forms of reform, including continuing to rely on the judicial system. But several difficulties are likely to arise with continuing reliance upon judicial methods of assessment including the risk of seriously overburdening the Family Court if the majority of separated parents were to use its services. Current judicial processes act as a disincentive to obtain maintenance because they are often costly to initiate, often involve a delay in obtaining payment and are difficult to vary in light of changed circumstances. In addition, courts are required under the Family Law Act to look at parents' capacity to pay in setting maintenance; but evidence suggests that there is a going rate commonly applied. A central feature of the reform is use of administrative assessment by formula but with reliance on judicial discretion in contentious cases. Considerable benefits are expected to follow. The procedure will eliminate the burden on the custodial parent to initiate court proceedings, will ensure higher payments and more uniformity in amounts in line with capacity to pay and will lead to a much greater coverage of the custodial parent population. Finally, those parents who can afford to contribute will meet their obligation-a big reform on the current system where it is the taxpayer who has largely adopted financial responsibility for the children of separated parents. The timetable has another advantage in that it will permit the Government to address the important access issue. The Government is waiting on advice from both the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Family Law Council on matters relating to the access issue and we will consider those reports as a matter of priority. The Government remains committed to the principle that access should not be linked to the new system of financial payments for children. We believe that we should retain the strong principle taken by family law to keep liability for child support and access to children as separate issues. But at the same time the Government is concerned to make some progress in investigating ways to ensure that access entitlements are adhered to: The child support reform is an important step towards improving the circumstances of many thousands of children who deserve a fair start in life. It is also part of this Government's commitment to make sure that family law keeps pace with social change. There are four major parts of the proposed reform: Firstly, a legislative formula to replace the current discretionary system as the method of assessing maintenance obligations; secondly, administrative assessment of liability under the formula by a child support agency under the control of the Commissioner of Taxation with judicial assessment in disputed cases-this will mean in the great majority of cases the parties would not have to consider court proceedings as the maintenance issue would be resolved by a simple administrative process; thirdly, the collection of payments by the child support agency would be automatically withheld from a non-custodial parent's income wherever that is possible, as in the case of pay as you earn non-custodial parents-the self-employed will have to pay to the agency monthly; and fourthly, distribution of child support payments will be done through the Department of Social Security. The child support initiative is an important reform, not only in its own right; it is also a clear indication of the Government's commitment to help Australian families. The children of separated and divorced parents are among the poorest groups in our society. The child support agency promises a new security for those children, and will contribute to a better start in life for them. Mr BLUNT(Richmond) —by leave-Today the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) has brought into this place a statement which purports to be the Government's policy on reform of child support. It is a totally inadequate document which underlines the inadequacy of this Minister's administration. It is a convention of this Parliament that the Opposition is provided with a statement some two hours in advance of it being delivered. That is a protocol that I recognise and adhere to. I am moved in this case to express some regret that, given the significance of this issue, the Minister has not adopted a truly bipartisan approach and allowed for fuller consultation on and consideration of the Government's proposals. I regret that his attitude to consulting with the Opposition on this issue reflects the Government's attitude of consulting with the community generally on this issue. I refer to the much vaunted-- Mr Howe —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will not have misrepresentation. The Opposition has in fact been informed on the development of the scheme. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Howe —The Opposition spokesman speaking has in fact been briefed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. There is no point of order. Mr BLUNT —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I find that the Minister's attitude to the Standing Orders of this House is quite amazing. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Richmond might not pursue that argument; he might deal with the statement before the House. Mr BLUNT —Mr Deputy Speaker, as I was saying, the Government's much-vaunted statement on child support which was brought down last year-some 40 pages with 30 pages of appendices-is in itself an inadquate document in that it contains no details. Mr Howe —You are showing your ignorance, Charles. Mr BLUNT —I listened in silence to the Minister and I would ask that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, request that he accord me the same courtesy. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Richmond will continue with his contribution. Mr BLUNT —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can assure the Minister that if he continues to raise points by interjection I will reply to them and I will deal with him in the way in which he should be dealt with rather than in the bipartisan way in which I intend to. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Let us deal with the statement before the House rather than deal with anybody else, thank you. Mr BLUNT —Mr Deputy Speaker, the Government brought to this Parliament a document on child support and claimed to indulge in an extensive and widespread consultative process with interested groups in the community. It allowed seven weeks for that consultation and limited the consultation to a very small and tight list of approved and selected national organisations. The result was that within the community there were grave concerns and misgivings about the Government's intentions, particularly as the document contained no precise details of the formula that the Government proposed to proceed with. Today in this statement, which purports to be a further definition of the Government's intentions in this area, there are still no details of the formula that the Government intends to proceed with. This is, as the Minister says, a staged approach. It is staged in every sense of the word: There is a staged implementation and it is staged for the benefit of the politics of this situation. When we consider this document in total we see that it is a proposal to move as soon as legislation is available to establish a maintenance collection agency, which is a reform which the Opposition recognises is necessary. We do have some reservations about the proposals as they appear in this document and I will deal with those later. The second stage is most interesting. It deals with the proposed formula. As I said, there are no details of this formula in the document. It is very interesting to note that the second stage, the stage which is most controversial, which involves the fairly arbitrary formula with no details and no specifics attached to it, will not be introduced until at least after the next election, if this Parliament does run its full term. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would suggest to you and to everybody else who is listening that the intentions of this Government in this area are absolutely transparent. The Government has a very difficult political issue on its hands. It has an ideological position which it intends to pursue. It is aware of the politics of the Australian community. The Government intends to move for electoral advantage at the next election and it intends to put off the nasty or unsavoury bits of its proposals until after that election. The Government must be extremely naive if it thinks that the community, which is particularly interested in these proposals, will allow it to get away with that tactic. Let me address the contents of the statement made by the Minister today. On page 1 he says: All of us on both sides of this House know that the present system is unfair and ineffective. I agree with that statement and I am sure there is bipartisan support for that proposition. In 1984 the Opposition parties moved in the Senate of this Parliament to achieve certain changes to the Family Law Act to remedy some of the inadequacies that the Minister referred to late in his statement. Earlier this year in the Opposition's family policy the Opposition made statements which addressed this particular issue. For the benefit of the Minister and the Australian community let me read briefly from that policy. It reads: We will amend the Family Law Act to restore the primary obligation of parents to maintain their children, while confirming that support will continue to be provided for families in need. A fair, effective means of determining and enforcing maintenance payments by non-custodial parents for their children will be established and will include provision for collection of payments at income source where appropriate. As I have said, there is bipartisan support in this Parliament for the need to reform not only the methods of child support but also the methods of maintenance collection. It is to the shame of the Minister that he has refused to adopt a bipartisan approach to this issue and has persisted in pursuing a partisan, ideological line which is going to make it extremely difficult for this Government successfully to reform child support and maintenance provisions in this community. The Minister is alienating the very groups in the community he needs to keep on side, by his refusal to consult effectively, his refusal to communicate effectively and his refusal to accept their constructive criticism of his proposals. On the first page of the statement the Minister suggests that there is inadequate support by non-custodial parents for their children and that, as a result, they have been living in poverty. Part of the problem has been that this Government, in its four years in office, has done nothing whatsoever to address the question of maintenance collection, to amend the Family Law Act or to enforce the provisions of the payment of supporting parent's benefit under the Social Security Act. The Minister knows that he has sat on his hands for four years. Under immense pressure, for political reasons, he rushed through a proposal which, as I have demonstrated and will continue to demonstrate, is totally inadequate and is causing more problems than it solves. On page 2 of the Minister's statement he says: All too often these parents no longer support their children the way they used to and the responsibility falls on the social security system. This Minister has done more than any other person in the Parliament actually to encourage that situation. He has done nothing to enforce the primary obligation of parents to support their children. He has done nothing to enforce the payment of supporting parent's benefit being conditional upon attempting to collect maintenance. He has done nothing to implement amendments to the Family Law Act. As I said, we suggested those amendments back in 1984. Had the Government wanted to take those amendments to its Cabinet, change them slightly and bring them back to the Parliament, it would have had bipartisan support. But not this Minister. He is too busy fighting the battles of the left wing, of his faction, to be concerned with his portfolio. Mr Howe —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. It is not my intention to pursue this discussion in a personal way. If the honourable member wants to be heard in silence, I suggest that he make his remarks in a rather less divisive manner. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr BLUNT —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I make no personal reflection on the Minister himself, but simply on the way he conducts his portfolio. On page 3 of the statement the Minister refers to the number of lone parents in Australia and their 450,000 children. He suggests that for most of these households the pension or benefit is their only source of income. The reality is that it is a result of this Government's policies that the pension or benefit is their only source of income. It is the economic policies of this Government, and in particular, of Treasurer Keating, that have created an economic situation where there are inadequate full time jobs for people to seek and also inadequate part time jobs. This Government has done nothing to alleviate the impact of what are known as `poverty traps' on single parent families. The Minister knows that there is a massive disincentive for people on social security benefits to earn additional income. He is aware that the Government, with great bally-hoo, in 1985 introduced legislation which purported to do something about it. It was introduced with a 12-month lead time. It was supported by the Opposition. We said: `It is a good idea. You should do more and you should implement it straight away'. Not only did the Government not implement it straight away, and not only did it intend to defer the legislation for a year, but when it came close to the implementation date the Government deferred it for another eight months. The Minister comes into this Parliament today and suggests that for most of these households there is no income besides the benefit available from the Department of Social Security. He knows, just as I know and everybody else in this Parliament knows, that the reason there is no other benefit is that there is no incentive for people to earn any income besides the benefit because of the incredibly high effective marginal tax rates imposed on them by the policies of this Government-effective marginal tax rates which make the 60 per cent rate people complain about look small; effective marginal tax rates for beneficiaries of the Department of Social Security, people under the care of the Minister for Social Security, in excess of 100 per cent. He says in his statement today that they do not have any other source of income. What incentive is there for any other source of income? Had the Minister done his job and implemented that poverty traps reduction legislation on time, or when it was first brought to the Parliament, the statistics that he is citing today would be totally different. The Minister makes reference to introducing a detailed statement of the Government's intentions on child support. As I have said before, he must be joking in this area. It is a flimsy document with no detail and which simply canvasses a number of options. In this statement today, which as I have said purports to be a further definition of the Government's policy in this area, we reasonably expected more detail. We expected to see the formula in black and white. We expected to see the qualifications attached to that formula. We expected to see the results of the consultation. We expected to see the results of the deliberations of the Cabinet and a statement of exactly where the Government will go. But not one thing do we see in this statement today. It is deliberately vague, it consists of generalities and there is no way that the people who will be affected by this statement will know exactly what its impact on them will be. The Minister knows that he has stirred up a hornets nest and that the single parent organisations throughout Australia will not be fooled or deluded by the carefully staged and orchestrated proposals that the Government is attempting to foist upon them in terms of its proposals for the reform of child support and the collection of maintenance. On page 4 of the statement the Minister lays down five principles that he claims are the specific objectives of the proposals. The five objectives are quite laudable but, as usual, they are not specific. Without knowing the specific details of these objectives, it is not reasonable for the Minister or for the Government to expect the Opposition or the community at large to accept those objectives. The Minister talks about the capacity to pay without defining capacity to pay. What trade union would accept an agreement framed in terms as vague as that? He talks about adequate support for all children of separated parents. There is no comment about adequate support for the children of second families. He talks about ensuring that their needs are met without any definition of needs. He talks about encouraging people to participate in the work force. I have already dealt at some length with the appalling record of this Government in terms of poverty traps and the incentive for people on benefits to get back into the work force. The fifth point, which is most telling, is that he talks about the overall arrangements needing to be simple, flexible and efficient. We do not know what the overall arrangements are in respect of personal privacy. Yet he proposes that an agency under the overall control of the Commissioner of Taxation will collect maintenance payments from employees. That means that employers will automatically know of the employee's personal arrangements and the obligations for the payment of maintenance. That will have some impact on the attitude of employers towards employees. Yet these proposals are to reflect personal privacy. I believe this is one of the great problems that this Government has: It talks in generalities without knowing how it will implement these proposals. In stage one there is talk of establishing a maintenance collection agency to collect all orders. The Minister tried at some length to explain the categories of maintenance orders that would be collected by this agency. I ask the Minister: Why is it necessary for this agency to collect all orders? Surely in a free, democratic society, if people on the dissolution of their marriage or partnership decide to go their separate ways and come to a mutually agreeable settlement and are prepared to abide by that settlement and make the respective payments and honour the agreement, why is it necessary for big brother, for the bureaucracy, to become involved? I say to the Minister that there is no valid reason, except to indulge the ideological preferences of this Government or to indulge the excesses of the bureaucracy which wants to stick its finger into every possible pie. The Opposition has considerable reservations about this proposal. It calls on the Government to answer the questions that have been posed not only by us but also by those people who are particularly concerned about the way that this proposal will operate. In recent weeks and months we have seen the inadequacies of the Australian Taxation Office in its failure even to administer effectively its own tax legislation. I ask the Minister what confidence he has in the Tax Office-an office which has a proven record of poor and sloppy administration, an incapacity to collect tax, an incapacity to administer its own Act and an incapacity to maintain accurate records of who has paid tax and to use the information that is available to it, and which is busy clawing for additional powers in the form of an identity card-to effectively administer this child support maintenance collection agency? I am sure that the Minister, if he is honest, has the same reservations about that proposal that he has about ID cards. The Minister has explained how this formula will apply to the self-employed but he has not explained what will happen, in cases of joint or shared custody, to the responsibilities for maintenance. He has not explained whether the automatic application of a formula will encourage separation. I wonder whether his task force which did the work on this issue has considered the social impact of some of these legislative proposals. The Minister has not explained whether unwed mothers will be obligated to name the fathers, how disputes will be settled and what action he will take to ensure that evidence to settle those disputes is available. He has not indicated whether the task force has assessed whether this proposal will intensify custody battles, because the incentives will not only be emotional but also financial because of the potential impact of this formula. He has not explained why employers should know about their employees' personal arrangements and their responsibilities to their former spouses, partners or children. The Minister has not explained in any detail what the new role of the Family Court of Australia will be and he has not explained whether this scheme will be retrospective or not. He has not explained whether, if a review is sought of a maintenance order, it will be caught by this new agency and whether it will be compulsorily collected rather than the present arrangements. He has not suggested whether there will be limits applied to this formula. He has not provided any details about the formula at all. He has not suggested to us what will happen in the event of changed income circumstances or what will happen when payments are not met. He has not suggested what the position will be with respect to the unemployed and whether the amount owing will accrue as a debt. There is no commentary on the rights of second families and there is no statement of the Government's recognition of their rights. There is no detail on the cost of this child support collection agency. As I said, it is a totally inadequate statement. It is a most significant area for both government administration and for our society. There is an absolute and urgent need to achieve reform. This reform must be based upon community acceptance and equity. That can be achieved only by genuine widespread consultation, not the indulgence of an ideological position and by making sure that there is full understanding right throughout the community, particularly by all those people who are affected or potentially affected by what the Government proposes. In terms of those criteria, the Minister and the Government have failed absolutely in this statement today in the totally inadequate document that was tabled in this Parliament last year and also in the consultation process that has supposedly gone on between the two events. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many Post Office agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of post office agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency services they offer expanded. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Rocher and Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Ms Jakobsen,Mr Kent,Mr Scott and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Any proposals to abolish the Department of Veterans' Affairs gravely concern ex-servicemen, ex-servicewomen and their families because they renege on clear and unequivocal commitments from various Commonwealth Governments to properly care for Australia's veterans. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Parliament to: Ensure that the Department of Veterans' Affairs continues to exist as a separate and distinct Department of State servicing the needs of veterans and their families. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Peter Fisher,Mr Nehl and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employer and employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of their choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions equal employer and employee control with adequate security of investments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled, we the undersigned citizens call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and concessional card holders and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That we strenuously object to the Government's decision to delete 45 commonly prescribed drugs (including analgesics, anti-histamines, cough mixtures and expectorants) from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. That we strenuously object to the Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and alergic rhinitis) are ``relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses''. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled, we the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher call upon all Members to pay due respect to pensioners and concessional card holders and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: That we strenuously object to the Government's decision to delete 45 commonly prescribed drugs (including analgesics, anti-histamines, cough mixtures and expectorants) from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. That we strenuously object to the Federal Health Minister's assertion that the health problems for which these medications are prescribed (e.g. arthritis and alergic rhinitis) are ``relatively minor, self-limiting illnesses''. That we beg the House to reconsider these deletions from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: This Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that- (1) A cessation of the testing of nuclear weapons would break the cycle of research, development and deployment of nuclear weapons and prevent the acquisition of new and ever more lethal weapons of mass destruction. It would thus be a major and significant step towards ending the arms race and beginning the disarmament process; and (2) The Soviet Union has extended its unilateral moratorium on nuclear weapons testing until August 6 this year and has again invited the United States to cease its nuclear testing program. Your petitioners therefore urge the Australian Government to put the strongest pressure on the United States Government to join the Soviet Union's nuclear test ban. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale. To the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation yet introduced, and that on all the evidence available, it will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ID Card proposal is the most far reaching and intrusive piece of Australian legislation ever, and that on all the evidence available will not tackle in the most cost-efficient and effective manner tax and social security fraud. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject Labor's ID Card proposal to prevent a gross waste of taxpayers' money and a significant infringement of civil liberties. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the Fringe Benefits Tax is an iniquitous and unjust impost which will further damage the Australian economy and further increase costs to employers. The Tax will: (1) further increase the level of unemployment; (2) increase the administrative costs and overheads for business and Government; (3) particularly disadvantage small businesses and farmers; and (4) act as a disincentive to those who are the most productive and skilled; and we the undersigned call upon the Government to immediately repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The fringe benefits tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely-depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The fringe benefits tax will be a disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this legislation and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Duffy. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we strongly oppose the introduction of the ``Australian Card'' or any other form of National Identification Numbering System. We believe that the introduction of a National Identification Numbering System is not only totally unnecessary but is a severe threat to our civil liberties and privacy. We condemn the Government's actions on this matter, particularly as no reasonable nor responsible justifications for the proposal have been forthcoming from the Government. We humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should reject any proposal for a National Identification Numbering System. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously urge, for the sake of economic development of the Illawarra region, the Federal Ministers Mr Brown and Mr Willis to recommend funding of the Illawarra Planetarium Project, as recommended to them by the Government of the state of New South Wales. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to ensure that the Illawarra Planetarium project receives sufficient funding to proceed as planned. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Martin. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, the petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That current funding to Occasional Child Care Services in N.S.W. is totally inadequate and consequently services are in dsanger of closing. We call upon the N.S.W. Government to increase funding in the 1986/87 Budget by giving sufficient funds to employ staff according to the States licensing requirements, to upgrade inadequate buildings and to provide fee relief for low income earners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House recognises that Occasional Child Care is an essential service for home based parents by increasing funding urgently. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Martin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the North Coast section of the Pacific Highway, from a point just south of Port Macquarie and just north of Woolgoolga, is in urgent need of major road improvement works in order to bring it up to road safety standards. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government immediately divert national highway funds or make available other funds towards the improvement of this section of the Pacific Highway. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned, are deeply concerned that Australia's important horticultural indsutry is being severly disadvantaged by unnecessarily rising production costs. Many Federal and State Government regulations, excessive taxes and charges are damaging the ability of horticultural growers to maintain supplies of food and plant products to Australian families at a realistic cost. Widespread unemployment will result if horticultural producers are further depressed. The undersigned humbly petition the Parliaments of Australia, its States and Territories, to take all measures within their powers to reduce the burden of imposed costs and regulation, allowing Australian horticultural growers to develop production potential so the nation, as a whole, can share the benefits of the resulting growth and prosperity. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that: in this International Year of Peace, 1986, the world needs a nuclear test moratorium by the United States, the Soviet Union, France and other nuclear-testing powers; that such a moratorium would create a favourable climate and basis for the negotiation of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; that such a Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would be the first vital step to nuclear disarmament impede the development of new nuclear weapons decrease the reliance upon an unstable nuclear strategy inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government be urged to 1. Use its influence with the United States Government to encourage it to join the moratorium on nuclear testing begun by the Soviet Union on 6 August 1985. 2. Use its influence in all forums to encourage other nuclear nations to join the Nuclear Test Moratorium. 3. Use its influence in all forums to encourage non-nuclear nations to demand the establishment of a Nuclear Test Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that we ask the Government to renew the agreement with the US Government on the facilities at Pine Gap only on receiving from the US Government a written guarantee that it will take up whole-heartedly and in good faith the phased nuclear disarmament plan put forward by the Soviets earlier this year, for complete nuclear disarmament by the year 2000. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of the 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry Report and call upon the house to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia in the Division of Hinkler respectfully showeth: 1. That contributors and pensioners of both the Defence Force and Public Service Superannuation schemes are outraged at the consequences of the Superannuation and Other Benefits Legislation and Amendments Act 1986. 2. That the Government's decision to discount by 2% the benefits of members of the Australian Defence Forces and Australian Public Service has broken a trust which should exist between contributors and the Government. 3. That this decision to discount the retirement benefits and pensions has seriously lowered the morale and commitment of servicemen and public servants as well as affecting their financial security and that of their families. 4. That these beneficiaries and pensioners are being called on to suffer a permanent reduction in their pensions from 10th October 1986 until death or the death of their spouses and that this reduction will be compounded over the continuing years. Your petitioners humbly pray that legislation be enacted to ensure that 1987 pension increases be based on the rate of pension applicable between June 1986 and the 9th October 1986. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Conquest. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Queensland respectfully showeth that: The legislation to tax fringe benefits is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair; It will severely disadvantage both employees and employers; Employees will clearly lose many fringe benefits as a direct result of the additional heavy taxation burden being imposed upon employers; Employers will be forced to pay even higher levels of taxation to provide fringe benefits for employees. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: that the current policy pursued by the Hawke Government is causing an intolerable increase in home loan interest rates beyond the capacity of families to pay. that consequently this policy is causing grave hardship throughout Australia and is contributing to social problems and the breakup of the family unit. that unless the Government act urgently the Australian dream of home ownership is fast becoming shattered for many of our citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Government make home loan interest rates tax deductible therefore alleviating the present crippling burden of current high interest rates on home owners and home buyers. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system of Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Forces, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation forthwith. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: 1. That we, the undersigned, are totally opposed to substantial Federal Government funding presently being wasted on undesirable, inefficient and incompetently run Government projects that are unacceptable to the vast majority of decent Australians. 2. That Government grants should not be directed toward projects that are of no, or dubious, worth to the improvement of Australia. 3. That public funding should not be used in encouraging lifestyles contrary to the Australian family way of life. 4. That public moneys should not be given to minority groups to support projects that are of a direct political nature. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Halt forthwith the public funding for the abovementioned purposes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Fisher respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has purported to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, in reality the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985, Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government had no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in such a disgraceful manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but purported to hand over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e., set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia, And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers' conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon its ill-considered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Right Honourable Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the assembled Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. We the humble petitioners at La Trobe University, Bundoora, in the Federal Electorate of Jaga jaga, respectfully showeth: That the introduction of an Administration Charge of $250 for higher education students in Appropriation Bill 1986-1987 (Volume-1, Page-98) is a regressive step for the Education system; That the introduction of an Administration Charge will force students to withdraw from studies and thereby destroy the opportunity for them to complete their education; That the Administration Charge is a form of Tuition Fees and as such destroys the principle of free education for all; We, the humble petitioners hereby request you to amend the Appropriation Bill 1986-1987, so that the system of free education for all students will continue. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The government's failure to ease the burden of high interest rates, high inflation and excess government taxes, excises and charges on farmers and small business enterprises in Australia. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(3.34) —This matter of public importance is on the business paper today because of the coalition's deep and growing concern about the state of the rural economy, about the fortunes of farmers, which are dwindling day by day, and about small enterprises generally, particularly in regional Australia. Interest rates and inflation are the two most destructive forces operating in the Australian economy today, destroying our competitiveness as a trading nation. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), to his credit, has admitted it not once but several times. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has more recently admitted it but only told us that there would be no early relief. The Government is not showing the determination in budgetary and wages policy to reduce interest rates substantially or to compensate those sectors most at risk, except those paying off homes at a subsidised interest rate of 13.5 per cent. I remind the Minister and I remind the House that some farmers and some small businessmen throughout Australia are paying over 20 per cent in order to keep their businesses operating. The Government, in the pursuit of its economic strategy, is placing at risk the viability of farmers and small businesses in the rural communities and placing at risk the hopes of those prospective home buyers. There is a farm and small business crisis throughout Australia. Nowhere is it more obvious than in the wheat belt regions. The reasons are simple enough: Firstly, world commodity prices are at an all-time low for wheat and grains; secondly, our real interest rates have been and remain at an all-time high; and, thirdly, the farmers cannot go on carrying the burden that is being imposed upon them by the Government in respect of interest rates and government-imposed charges. The farmers, with 70 per cent of their production sold on overseas markets, are unable to pass on those costs. Therefore, they are carrying the burden of near record high interest rates three to four times higher than those of their competitors; inflation at almost 10 per cent, which is four times higher than that of most of their competitors-in the case of Japan, for instance, it is ten times greater; wage increases which have accelerated at a rate of 60 per cent higher in the last three years than those of our competitors; and, of course, the direct and indirect effects of the high fuel excise regime, the interception by the Government into the fall in lower world oil prices. On top of this we have the fringe benefits tax and the capital gains tax. People who are looking for reasons why the J-curve has been slow to arrive need look no further than the continuing high interest rates. The high interest rates that have been in this country since the devaluation started have not been conducive to investment. We are experiencing the worst balance of trade deficit in our history and one of the worst in the Western world. Work practices exist in this country that do not exist anywhere else in the world, and this is contributing to our low productivity. However, our interest rates are the critical issue. The Economic Planning Advisory Council at the weekend hit the right note. I will quote from its report: . . . there remains a real risk that sustained high interest rates will constrain business investment to the extent that industrial activity and productivity growth will be inadequate to sustain a reasonable rate of economic growth over the medium term. This was said last year at about the same time. It was said by the Secretary to the Treasury last February that the Government has not moved to take the pressure off the monetary supply control mechanism. The worst hit victims of high interest rates are the capital intensive export sectors, the farm, the mining sectors and small business, which are vital to our balance of trade and employment opportunities. Mr Beale —And home owners. Mr HUNT —And home owners, as the honourable gentleman has rightly interceded. The overseas debt has accelerated from $36 billion in 1983 to $101 billion in September 1986. The domestic debt has reached $150 billion. Our balance of trade deficit will be in the vicinity of $13 to $14 billion. We have lost the AAA loan rating for the first time this century. We are saddled with the highest taxing, highest spending Government since the last world war, a government which has surpassed even the ugly spending record of the Whitlam Government. Let it be understood that in the seven years of the Fraser Government the average level of expenditure increased at 2.2 per cent, but since this Government has been in office it is going at just under 8 per cent. It is a shocking legacy that the Government is leaving in this country for our children. The National Farmers Federation, towards the end of the last year, attempted to make a constructive contribution to the debate and attempted to persuade the Government to adopt policies to overcome the problem, but Mr McLachlan, the President, was kicked out of the Cabinet room. It was a blueprint for cutting interest rates, spending and inflation. The report is there for the Government to read. I would like to table the report because I think that everybody in the Parliament and everybody generally should read it. Leave granted. Mr HUNT —It is a report that the Government should study. I think that the Minister for Primary Industry, who is at the table, has read the report 100 times but he cannot convince his colleagues. Mr McGauran —He is not convinced himself. Mr HUNT —Probably not. The report re- commends taking pressure off monetary policy and achieving a more rational balance between government spending, wages and monetary policies. The Prime Minister and the Government blame the Fraser Government; at times it blames the Menzies-McEwen Government; and it blames the world. After four years of wages indexation, excessive government spending and a disproportionate reliance on monetary policies to prop up the Australian dollar with extortionate interest rates, the Hawke Government has all but wrecked regional Australia. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the important wheat belt where farmers are struggling for their financial lives. This Government has so far succeeded in quarantining our shocking economic problem to small sectors of our community-small in number but vital in the national economic output. The majority of Australians are unaware of the problem. They are protected from it, at least for the time being. They are protected by the indexed wages system, with the dollar propped up to sustain various forms of wage indexation. Firstly, we had the wages accord; now we have the two-tier wages system, which is really indexation by another name. The economic crisis in Australia is quarantined, to a large extent, to farmers; small business; new home buyers; export industries and regional areas. However, in the longer term every Australian will suffer from the external and domestic debt loads that are bearing heavily on that sector of the community. The cereals industry is in major crisis. Fifty-three per cent of growers in my own State of New South Wales are at risk. That is not something that I have concocted; that comes from the report of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The average wheat grower income at $23 a week is nothing less than a frightening spectacle for many families. One grower in four will suffer a net income loss of at least $27,000 this year, and one in four will face an interest bill of at least $37,000 this year. Every effort is being made to encourage the European Economic Community to stop its domestic subsidy policies and predatory trading practices. I give the Government some credit for what it has been able to achieve so far in getting agriculture on the agenda for the Multilateral Trade Negotiations. The Government cannot do much more on that front. There will be no immediate relief to this economy or to those sectors of the community from that effort. The Government cannot go on blaming other countries for our own crisis. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a document which shows the relative changes in the Australian interest rates compared with those in the United States. Leave granted. The document read as follows- PRIME LENDING RATE (Per cent) Year Australia U.S.A. Differential 1965 ... 6.5 4.54 +1.96 1966 ... 6.6 5.63 0.97 1967 ... 6.7 5.63 1.07 1968 ... 6.7 6.31 0.39 1969 ... 7.0 7.95 -0.95 1970 ... 7.6 7.91 -0.31 1971 ... 7.7 5.72 1.98 1972 ... 7.4 5.25 2.15 1973 ... 7.4 8.02 -0.62 1974 ... 10.3 10.80 -0.5 1975 ... 11.2 7.86 3.34 1976 ... 10.9 6.84 4.06 1977 ... 11.0 6.82 4.18 1978 ... 10.9 9.06 1.84 1979 ... 10.6 12.67 -2.07 1980 ... 11.4 15.27 -3.87 1981 ... 13.6 18.87 -5.27 1982 ... 15.8 14 .86 0.94 1983 ... 14.9 10.79 4.11 1984 ... 14.4 12.04 2.36 1985 ... 16.4 9.93 6.47 Columns 1 and 2 compiled at request by the statistics group of the Legislative Research Service. Mr HUNT —I thank the House. The document shows that, between 1965 and 1972, Australia's interest rate was not 2.5 per cent more than that in the United States; in the Whitlam period, it was 4 per cent above the United States rate; in 1981, it was 5 per cent less; in 1985, it was 6 per cent more; and today it is 10 per cent higher than the United States prime rate. Already, the United States Agricultural Attache, Mr Jim Parker, has told the Government to put its house in order. I think that we have reached a stage where we cannot go on waving our gnarly finger at other countries and asking them to change their economic and trading policies while we do nothing about our own domestic problem. There has been no real effort to reduce production costs. There are tariffs on direct inputs on all farm machinery, spare parts and chemicals; fuel excise has risen from 6c a litre to 19c a litre; interests rates have been jacked up by 5 to 6 per cent on what they should be, as a result of the monetary policy being applied; and fertiliser costs have been increased by regulated shipping laws which we are committed to reform. Efforts in those areas-if the Government would act-could increase wheat grower returns by $18,000 per annum per farm. How can we blame our overseas trading competitors when our inflation rate is up eight or 10 times higher than that which applies in the countries of our overseas competitors? How can we blame other countries when our interest rate is three times higher than that of our competitors? How can we blame other countries when the tariffs on our secondary industries are about five times higher than those in the United States and are costing farmers, on average, about $10,000 per farm? There may have been a time when the rural sector was able, and prepared, to carry the cost of tariff protection, but there is no way in which it can do so today, and there is no way it should. Let us look back to the Fraser period. I often hear the Fraser inflation rate cited. I hope that the Minister will not do so today. When the Fraser Government left office, the inflation rate in this country was very much at the lower end of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the industrial nations scales. Our farmers are competing on world markets with farmers in EEC countries who enjoy an effective 160 per cent assistance and with United States farmers who enjoy an effective 100 per cent assistance. Our wheat growers are getting 2 per cent, and they are battling against the high costs of the Government's economic policies. The Government cannot have the best of all worlds-firstly, leaving wheat growers unassisted and, secondly, leaving them to carry a disproportionate share of the cost of its macroeconomic policies. I call upon the Government to launch a three-pronged approach to the farm problem, especially in the wheat industry which carries an average debt load in excess of $200,000 in New South Wales. That three-pronged approach would involve: Firstly, an immediate action to remove or replace the tariff with bounties on all farm machinery, spare parts and chemicals and to reduce excise on fuel; secondly, the allocation of additional funds to the rural assistance boards to meet the growing need of debt adjustment and interest relief, especially in the wheat industry, for those farmers who are in trouble but have some hope of recovery; and, thirdly, the re-establishment of the farm development loan fund from an allocation of funds from the statutory reserve deposits to provide long term concessional fixed interest rate loans. There is $3.5 billion of bank funds held by the Reserve Bank of Australia in statutory reserve deposits at 7 per cent interest. In the 1960s, when there were problems in the rural industries, the Liberal-Country Party Government established the farm loan fund from statutory reserve deposits. That has since been abolished. Urgent action is needed. We have seen our farm debt increase from $6 billion in 1983 to $12 billion today, and an interest bill for farmers rising from $780m per annum to over $2,000m per annum. We have seen the disastrous repossession of the tools of trade of farmers at Molong and Moree. Let us face it: Interest rates will not be reduced until there is a balance between monetary, wages and budgetary policies, and they must be evenly applied. On behalf of the coalition, I put forward the proposition that this country must have a debt crisis strategy meeting between the banks, representatives of State adjustment agencies, farm leaders and the relevant Ministers for the rural adjustment boards. The Minister has so far refused to take up this initiative. the NFF has shown an initiative today in talking to the banks. I call on the Minister to explain why he has not taken positive action to overcome a deep and growing crisis in the sectors that I have mentioned. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(3.49) —I understand the reasons of the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) in raising this matter today. I understand the pressure that is on him and his colleagues who represent rural areas, because the same pressure is on my colleagues who represent farming and rural areas. As I have said, and as everyone knows, interest rates are very high. There is simply no denyinjg that. I was reminded today of an old dog named Ralph that I once had on the farm. He only learnt one or two tricks. What we have seen today falls into place with the rest of the Opposition's rather cynical, broad political strategy, and that is to focus on problems and to put forward rather wet or ineffective solutions. Often it puts forward solutions that are cynical in the extreme because it plays on fears, it plays on voodoo economics, and it plays on the gullibility of people. For example, it talks about a wages policy, yet in the Heathcote and Bankstown by-elections the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was running around saying: `Labor doesn't represent the wage earners anymore. Wages are down by $31 since the Labor Party came into office'. The Opposition wants to freeze wages. It has opposed every wage increase and wage case that has gone to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Many Opposition members are aligned with the new Right that wants wages at $171.30 a week. The average rural wage happens to be about $220 a week, so probably it is not much to take it down by another $50. On the one hand it is saying that the real standard of living is going down-as it is-because of the international balance of payments situation we have on our hands, yet on the other hand it wants to run this wicked, cynical political campaign. Similarly, the opinion polls tell the Liberal Party and my Party that people are confused about the exchange rate going down. People think that this is a comment on the adequacy of macroeconomic policy. So the Opposition is saying that it is a terrible thing for the exchange rate to be down, yet the National Party-whichever one we can take any notice of these days-is saying that the exchange rate should go down further; more cynicism. We heard the same bleatings in this place yesterday about youth because someone saw in the polls that the youth vote is a little disenchanted. But the Opposition, of course, would never change the young people's unemployment benefit. What it would do is introduce university fees. If honourable members want to see a full analysis of the Opposition's education policies just look at page 20 of the Age today. What we hear today is cynicism. If we had time I would like to go through this whole rural debt problem, the relationship between the exchange rate and interest rates, and the balance of payments. We would have to look at what are the problems, we would have to find out what is the true situation and what are its causes. Secondly, we would have to look at what can be and is being done. Then we would have to look at what else can be done. What are the alternatives? The Deputy Leader of the National Party has put forward four matters. He says, firstly, that bounties should be replacing tariffs. We are doing that where we possibly can with agricultural machinery including headers and a range of cultivation equipment. We are trying to get more progress in other areas, but as I have explained to him and others, there is a compositional problem-we cannot delineate all machinery as being purely agricultural machinery. In other words, a portable five-horse power motor can be used for agricultural purposes or for other purposes, so can generic bearings, axles and other things. With respect to excise, the big problem on petrol-I must point out that we have taken that decision with respect to distillate and it is now worth an estimated $260m to the rural sector-is quarantining it to the rural sector itself. We all know that a direct budgetary cost is involved here. As we all know the National Farmers Federation wants us to take $10 billion off the Budget deficit. Des Keegan in the Australian today wants to take $20 billion off the Budget deficit and yesterday the Leader of the Opposition, according to the front pages of newspapers, wanted to take $5 billion off. So there are budgetary problems. The second point that the honourable gentleman makes as a solution relates to the rural adjustment scheme. That has been increased this year some 14 times. In addition to this there is the sugar adjustment package which is part of a $100m contribution by the Commonwealth Government and another $50m by the Queenslanders-if we can possibly spend the money on that industry as it is so hide-bound in regulation. Then there is the dairy adjustment scheme where the moneys have been paid over to the States. Overall, the rural adjustment scheme is not an interest subsidy scheme per se. On the farm development fund and the relationship of that to the statutory reserve deposits-his third point-the problem is with deregulation in the banking sector. The SRDs are now there for prudential purposes, not so much there as fat that can be used. That is one matter that we are looking at. His fourth point was to have a meeting. We believe that the NFF is best placed to talk to the banks in the manner they are today. We believe that that is entirely appropriate. Since I had two meetings with the banks last year, we have an ongoing monitoring device. The Friday before last I sat down for most of the day with the State governments and their rural adjustment Ministers. It is not as if we do not have enough facts on the situation. I said: `What are the alternatives and what is the rural sector running with?'. Basically the farming organisations are saying that the Government is maintaining high interest rates to keep the exchange rate up. That is not true. They fail to look at the other side of the coin. If the exchange rate went down, interest rates would not go down. They cannot get the relationship right. If the exchange rate went down, interest rates would go up. They could get a little more for their commodities overseas, costs would go up because inflation is feeding through the economy where there are inputs into production and the international debt would go up. On the other side of the coin, if the exchange rate moves up, interest rates would go down, farmers would get less revenue overseas for their goods, costs would go down and the international debt would go down. We have only to refer to the newspapers day by day. A headline in the Australian of 26 February reads: `Dollar breaks through 67c level'. The article stated: The rise sparked further falls in interest rates on the money market, where yields on 90-day bank bills, the indicator rate for the rest of the market, finished at 16.4 per cent, down from 17 per cent just a week ago. Every time we see a movement in the exchange rate it tracks out the relationship I have just described. Mr Walsh in the Sydney Morning Herald this week when referring to the harlots in the Senate on the Australia Card said: The price for not taking the necessary decisions will be a lower exchange rate . . . Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! I think the Minister should probably not reflect on the other House in such a manner. He might withdraw that remark. Mr KERIN —Yes. I was quoting directly from Mr Walsh. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I see. It is quotation. I apologise. If it is a quotation it is in order. Mr KERIN —He pointed out why Mr Hawke must challenge the harlot. Mr Cadman —Does that mean we can read anything into Hansard? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Chair can do without any help whatsoever from the honourable member for Mitchell. If the honourable member for Mitchell wants to make some contribution he might do so from his seat and not from some other part of the House. Mr KERIN —I will just clarify that. I was not referring to senators as harlots. I was saying that Mr Walsh used the overall, general description of the Senate as a harlot. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the Minister is quoting from the document he might continue. Mr KERIN —The quote is: The price for not taking the necessary decisions will be lower exchange rate which will automatically increase our indebtedness and therefore our interest payments. It will mean continuing high interest rates. Inflation will be locked into double digits and unemployment will quickly move to that range. Most economic commentators fully understand the relationship, but the Opposition and the farming organisations will continue to fail to recognise what the relationship is. The reality about interest rates is that they reflect a number of factors including economic growth, inflationary expectations, balance of payments, as well as the Government's monetary policy. At present, the Government must run a tight monetary policy in order to reduce inflationary pressures, but in no way can this be considered excessively tight at present, but it is tight nonetheless. A lax monetary policy-if that is what the Opposition is advocating-would be an inflation disaster because high equity ratios would be even worse than the high interest rates for most farmers. In other words, the monetary policy has the effect of temporarily supporting the currency at a higher level than would otherwise be the case. However, it is not the sole purpose of the monetary strategy. There has been a very substantial depreciation. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics index shows a depreciation in real effective terms of 37 per cent since the December quarter 1984. That has resulted in record levels of competitiveness. We should be moving to capitalise on the benefits of the devaluation we have had, not put forward all this witchdoctor stuff, voodoo economics, that the Opposition is suggesting. The honourable member for Gwydir incorporated in Hansard a table which incidentally shows a very good performance by the Whitlam Government. He misread one figure. The differential between Australia and the USA in 1985 was 6.47. There is no figure of 10 per cent there. Mr Hunt —It is 10 per cent now. Mr KERIN —It is not in the table. What does the table show? It shows that there is very little correlation in the table. The honourable gentleman fails to understand that we are dealing with a different situation altogether since we floated the currency and since we deregulated financial markets. The terms of trade have moved against us by 20 per cent to 30 per cent and we have had a loss of export income of $6 billion to $8 billion per annum. We should be capitalising on the benefits of the real devaluation of 37 per cent, rather than adopting some of the policies put forward by the rural sector, which wants us to push down the exchange rate even further. That would be against the interests of the rural sector, as interest rates and the national debt would go up. The other part of the honourable gentleman's comments related particularly to inflation. The currency depreciation and the terms of trade shift fully explain Australia's relatively poor inflation performance against the rest of the Western world. High interest rates are necessary to narrow and finance the balance of payments deficit in the context of a risk premium; hence both inflation and interest rates will fall as the balance of payments deficit falls and the currency stabilises. The honourable member for Gwydir referred to suggestions by the National Farmers Federation of Australia that the United States experience of a 40 per cent currency depreciation yet low inflation, a rate of 2 per cent against our rate of 9 per cent in 1986, and low prime interest rates-7.5 per cent, against our 18 per cent-contradicts this view. There is no such contradiction as the United States is very different from Australia. The United States average depreciation has been much less than 40 per cent. It is 30 per cent at most against the trade weighted index, which is only a little less than our 32 per cent over the two years to December 1986. Some people have suggested that a proper re- weighting of the United States index would give a depreciation of only 5 per cent. Imports are a smaller share of the United States gross national product-13 per cent against our 20 per cent-so that depreciation has a greater effect on our inflation that on inflation in the United States. In addition, the United States is such a large market that importers attempt to retain their market share, which reduces the effect of depreciation on inflation even more. Most importantly, the United States has not experienced a terms of trade decline. Falling agricultural export prices have been matched by falling import prices, particularly oil prices. So while our inflation will fall as the terms of trade stabilises, the inflation rate of the United States will rise. The United States depreciation will turn its balance of payments around quicker than ours because historically it has been a net creditor overseas, so it does not have the same J-curve effect from foreign debt that we have. The United States is such a major economy that world interest rates are basically set there. Our real interest rates are much closer than a comparison with nominal rates would indicate-about 8 per cent in Australia and 5 per cent in the United States. Wage movements cannot be blamed for our poorer circumstances because our real wages have fallen substantially over the past two years whilst United States real wages have hardly moved. In other words, the comparison put forward by the National Farmers Federation is nonsense. Let me bear down a bit more on the relationship of inflation to our terms of trade situation. The currency depreciation we have experienced explains our increased inflation rate. If one only includes the direct movements in import prices and ignores the indirect effects, it does not fully account for it all. I believe that we must include price increases arising from increased input prices, domestic import-competing producers taking advantage of increased import prices to increase their profit margin, increased domestic prices of exportables, and some wage response to all the above. In other words, discounting could never account for all of the factors. So our 32.3 per cent depreciation in the last two years would directly increase domestic prices by 6 per cent as imports are 19 per cent of the gross national expenditure; so the total effect will be much greater than this. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(4.04) —This matter of public importance emphasises the deteriorating economic and social decline in the rural communities and how serious a threat is imposed upon the living standards of all Australians, with its potential to reduce our productive capacity and export earnings. The Hawke Government has shown a lack of understanding of rural issues. Its rhetoric and actions display enormous ignorance and a lack of compassion for agricultural industries. The Government refuses to change policy direction to cut interest rates and reduce the massive burden of costs, particularly the greed of taxation on our petroleum products. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) may know that these changes are necessary, but the philosophy of the Australian Labor Party makes him a lame duck. He can only repeat ad nauseam that the future of agriculture depends on getting the economy right-and he has been at it again today. With the decline in export earnings and the criminal escalation of our national debt the future in rural Australia is bleak. The major farm economic statistics are stark. Average per farm business debt is $74,000 and for wheat farmers it is an average of $135,000. Of course, in many cases it is much higher. Average farm income is only $16,400, but on wheat properties in 1986-87 incomes will be only $1,200. Real land values in the wheat zone are down by 39 per cent. The real rate of return, including capital depreciation, is minus 12.1 per cent, and 12.5 per cent of wheat growers will have a net income loss of $60,000. In New South Wales a staggering 53 per cent of all wheat farmers are at risk and in Western Australia, in my electorate of Mallee, there are high levels of debt and high risk factors involved. The Government refuses to do anything about interest rate or cost structures. The Government must act immediately to change its rural adjustment scheme to alleviate the effects upon the social fabric of our communities. The object of RAS should be to enhance the viability of country centres by maintaining agricultural industries. The current rural crisis affects not only the primary producer but the entire rural economy, including small businesses in country towns. Rural services, hospitals and schools are already feeling the pressure of the current economic downturn. Allowing large numbers of primary producers to become bankrupt will have a devastating national, social and economic effect, as well as cause a loss in crucial export income of such farmers. There will be a vast increase in social welfare costs to support producers who are forced to have their properties removed from them. The nation simply cannot afford a further drift from rural Australia. At a time of record indebtedness in the rural sector it is tragic that government funding to assist rural construction and adjustment is at relatively low levels. Since 1975-76 the Commonwealth under a coalition government provided assistance to the States for the purpose of a rural adjustment scheme embracing debt reconstruction, farm build up, farm improvement, carry-on finance and household support. Under revised financial arrangements, introduced on 1 July 1985 by this Government, assistance for debt reconstruction, farm buildup and farm improvement is provided by the Commonwealth as an interest subsidy of 50 per cent for a maximum of seven years on funds raised from commercial sources. Similarly, carry on finance is provided as a 50 per cent interest subsidy on commercial borrowings for a maximum of seven years, but with the costs shared equally between the Commonwealth and the States. I remind policy makers in this Government that the moneys provided to rural adjustment used to be on a basis of low interest and long term loans. The Government has announced that it will increase assistance under the scheme through the interest subsidy proposals, but the amounts available to rural assistance are not large. In 1978-79, in a time of national difficulty, $47m was made available for rural reconstruction. A quick examination of the $34m appropriation this year shows that it is not high by any standard. A large proportion of the Government's appropriation to rural reconstruction has been and is being funded-I emphasise this point-by repayment of existing loans. The rural debt is now approaching $12 billion and therefore it is of concern that government outlays for rural assistance have not been increased to match the enormity of the problem. The total Federal Budget outlays for 1986-87 were $75 billion, but government outlays for rural assistance, after interest and repayments are taken into consideration, are negative for this year. The rural adjustment scheme must be made more flexible. Eligibility must not have as its determining factor the amount of funds available. Mr McGauran —It is unjust. Mr PETER FISHER —The viability of farmers, as the honourable member for Gippsland said, should not be based solely upon the debt equity approach but upon the production potential and the importance of the rural sector to Australia. Assistance must be even-handed, fair and politically acceptable to all sectors of rural Australia. The coalition has given urgent consideration to this issue and recommends urgent changes. The Government, for instance, must increase rural adjustment scheme funding. As an example, under part A of the scheme the maximum interest rate subsidy in New South Wales has recently been increased to $10,500. However, without an increase in appropriations, New South Wales will be able to increase the level of assistance per applicant only if it also is prepared to accept a reduced number of beneficiaries. The same situation applies across Australia. Increased funding can be justified as, over recent years, the Commonwealth Government has subsidised such industries as the car, housing and steel industries. The steel industry has received a total of $358m and a maximum yearly subsidy of $71.6m. Despite the Minister's protestations, interest rates are the single most important factor crippling primary producers. At present, average interest rates for primary industry and small business are running at 20.25 per cent and up to 23 per cent on a net basis to the borrower. Hire purchase and lease arrangement rates range from 24 per cent to 27 per cent. Mr Cobb —It is killing them. Mr PETER FISHER —It is killing the bush. The current subsidy available to producers is worth approximately 5 per cent, bringing rates down to only 15 per cent. Many of the most affected farmers are young, well-educated and technically advanced operators who have recently entered the industry. These farmers are the most viable future primary producers and need special assistance, given the negative affects of the deregulation of the financial system. Part B of the rural adjustment scheme should provide carry-on finance to industries suffering a severe market downturn or similar situation. Clearly, the current crisis in the wheat industry should come under part B. However, few funds are directed towards part B carry-on payments and this must be rectified. Obviously it is a grave weakness of any assistance scheme if carry-on funds at appropriate interest rates are not available or adequate. There are current guidelines in the rural adjustment scheme for household support to assist unviable producers to leave the industry. Given the difficult economic situation of many producers, a better assessment scheme should be available for part C applications. It is my view that an additional rehabilitation package must be made available for farmers who are forced to adjust out of the industry. One important aspect which must be addressed is the continued viability of producers within the industry. Currently, however, there are few objective criteria by which viability is measured. One possibility to improve application procedure and criteria would be a greater use of professional farm assessors and advisers. Applications for assistance could be made by such assessment also providing advice and help in farming techniques. Such assessment would create a long term improvement in rural production and practice and increase current and prospective viability. The Government, through the Minister for Primary Industry, must address the question of the sharing of risk, which is currently limited to seven years. Loans which are made beyond seven years do not attract any Commonwealth support. Producers must have a realistic opportunity for trading out of the current economic situation, which inevitably will take longer than seven years. Of course, the economic situation in many areas of primary industry remains so serious that it is essential that the private lending institutions take a more active role in maintaining producers. As I stated in a notice of motion I gave in the House today, the Government must not allow a large section of the population to lose home, heritage and livelihood and there is a need to retain and reallocate in different economic circumstances. It must show some concern for our productive people and stop grinding the average Australian into the dust with costs, interest rates and government taxes and regulations. Government policies have been found wanting and are totally discredited in the eyes of the electorate. A tragedy is taking place in rural Australia with major economic and social implications for the whole nation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(4.14) —The question I want to ask the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher) is: Where was he in 1981-82 when the Fraser Government caused the highest rate of bankruptcy in business in this country? Honourable members opposite do not like being reminded. They do not like being told the simple fact that when they were in government they did nothing whatsoever. Their Government caused the highest rate of bankruptcies to small business in Australia's history and they sat back like little lambs and did nothing at all. Where were they when the Party they represent was putting closer settlement schemes in, when it introduced tariffs and when it destroyed the whole concept of free enterprise in farming? Where were the now brave speakers of the National Party when Sir John McEwen introduced tariffs and destroyed the economy of this country? Where were the brave entrepreneurs of the National Party? Mr Ruddock —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member should address himself through the Chair and not in a provocative way to honourable members on this side of the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for McEwen. Mr CLEELAND —That is not a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The fact of this debate is that the very people who now stand up in this House suddenly seem to have found that there are farmers in Australia. They never read their history books. They never examine what disasters they have been in government and the great harm they have done to Australia's great farming industry. They do not want to talk about tariffs, although they introduced them. Now they want to blame this Government for tariffs. I find that the most amazing turnaround of all time. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) was in government when Sir John McEwen was unloading all those horrible things on this country, yet he stands up here now and says to Australian farmers that the Government has to get rid of tariffs. What sleight-of-hand and what great cynicism one must accept in the speech of the honourable member for Gwydir. Honourable members opposite talk about the solution to the problems. The solution the honourable member for Mallee comes up with is that he would put more debt onto the farmers. He says that we should lend farmers more money. The problem honourable members opposite complain about in this discussion is the indebtedness of farmers and high interest rates, but the solution they have proposed today is to give farmers more money, and load them up with more debt when they do at least, to their credit, recognise that the terms of trade are a disaster and that the price of wheat is not the fault of the Government but the fault of distorted external practices. The Opposition's solution-every farmer should listen to it-is to let the farmers borrow more money, load up with more debt and have a greater crisis in the future. That is the only solution honourable members opposite propose in this House. And they wonder why we on this side of the House regard them as economic illiterates. They wonder why we regard them as a joke when any economic debate occurs in this House. Their history and their present attitude display no concern for farmers. They love working on the scare tactic and drawing conclusions which are not correct. I draw the attention of the House to a television program, which probably everybody in this House saw, in which a farmer, Mr Roger Maloney, was shown being evicted from his property. It was indeed drama. It looked to be a very poor thing to occur. What were the facts in this case? We were not told what the real problem with Mr Maloney was. I refer to the Age of Tuesday 24 March 1987. An article by Deirdre Macken reads: By the time the television crews arrived at Roger Maloney's farm in Forbes, Mr Maloney had not made a payment on his mortgage for 4 years, he had not made a deposit at his bank for 18 months and had not been living on the farm for five months. The morning the television crews arrived, Mr Maloney returned to his farm. He took his children out of school and told police he should be evicted. The cameras rolled, and another farmer and his distraught family were turfed off their property by an uncaring banker. Let us not forget that there is tragedy in the bush, that there are farmers undergoing great crisis, but let us not be fooled by the sort of tomfoolery that we hear in this House when examples such as this are pointed to. We hear from National Party members an agricultural socialist view. They are typical Nat-agro-socialists. We hear from the Liberal Party, the Adam Smith free enterprise people. We sit on this side of the House and watch. The National Party, the agro-socialists, are interested in pouring everyone else's money into the farmers, and the Liberal Party, through its various spokesmen, talks about free enterprise and market force reality. It says that market forces should determine what happens. But we do not hear that from our friends on the cross-benches. They seem to think that the solution to the problem is to pour in more money. If there were no interest rate at all-the honourable member for Gwydir would surely agree with me-a large number of farmers would still be in massive difficulty simply because of the prices they are getting for their commodity, namely, wheat. It would not matter if they had not interest rate charge at all. Many farmers would still be in a grave situation because their farms are uneconomic and their production is too small for the land they have. They would still not make a living off the land, whether or not any interest at all was being charged. I do not think anyone would dispute that proposition. The solution of the National Party, as stated by its spokesmen today, is to keep putting money into that farmer; to put that farmer in a worse position by lending him more and more money. It is not to let market forces or the reality of the world impinge upon the farmer. It is not to force that farmer to make a real economic decision about whether he or she should stay on the land or get off it. That is not the National Party's solution. Its solution is to pour money in and to keep that farmer on the land until such time as the bank is forced to foreclose. Then we will see more Maloneys and more television drama and we will have a real crisis on the land. So the National Party solutions are a joke. They are not realistic. They are not based upon a real understanding of rural Australia and the crisis which is occurring. As the Minister rightly pointed out, it is not interest rates which are driving the crisis; it is prices which are driving interest rates. National Party members cannot seem to get that through their heads. The crisis which has been caused by the world trading situation, by the price for wheat, is driving interest rates. National Party members still cannot seem to understand, as the Minister explained, that if interest rates dropped today, if they were forced down, the end result would be that within 12 months world markets would price this country out of existence and interest rates would go through the planet. The very people for whom the National Party purports to have concern, the very people for whom it thinks it is the only people who care, would surely not benefit from such a stupid economic proposal. The National Party would do great damage to them. The great myth it seems to believe in is that people on my side of the House are enjoying the high interest regime. It seems to think that the Government is enjoying the fact that interest rates are very high. It seems to think that the Government is going to maintain high interest rates when they are a disaster for everyone concerned. There is a real reason for high interest rates-a real economic reason. It will not be changed by the sort of tomfoolery economics we have had today. The reality of the effects of interest rates on farmers is quite simple. For example, less than 120 out of 160,000 farmers in the past year were foreclosed on. The Westpac Banking Corporation, with 45,000 rural clients, had 42 fore- closures in the past year. An Australia and New Zealand Banking Group executive has said that that bank, with fewer rural clients, had only six foreclosures last year. The percentage of farmers who are at risk consists of farmers who are at the bottom end. They are farmers with small lots. They are still losing 100 acres of topsoil, I think it is, for every so many tonnes of wheat they produce. Mr Peter Fisher —Where did you get that figure from? Mr CLEELAND —The honourable member can go and read the report himself if he does not believe me. He lives in the area and he does not even know that this is occurring. The farming practices of these farmers will destroy their capacity to grow wheat in some marginal areas in any event. There is nothing governments can do to stop farmers from farming in non-productive areas and using techniques which are non- productive and which will destroy the land from which they are trying to get their living. That will occur irrespective of interest rates and irrespective of the price of wheat overseas. There is nothing governments can do-nor should they do-to encourage people to farm in such areas. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The debate is concluded. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CADMAN —Yes, I do, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr CADMAN —During the speech by the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland) he referred to the Fraser Government and the level of bankruptcies. As a member of that Government, I have to say that he has seriously misrepresented me because this Government is the record-breaking bankruptcy government-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Mitchell should know that that is not a personal explanation. He must show where he has been misrepresented. Mr CADMAN —As a member of that Party and that Government, I have been misrepresented. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —You have not been personally misrepresented. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay) —Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the fiftieth general report. Mr DOWNER(Mayo) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 266th report of the Committee-the response to the report on expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance (Appropriation Acts 1983-84). Ordered that the report be printed. Mr DOWNER —by leave-The Committee's 266th report details the Government's response to the Committee's 239th report on expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance under the Appropriation Acts 1983-84. The Advance to the Minister for Finance is a provision authorised by the annual Appropriation Acts. In this instance some $270m was made available to the Minister for issue in accordance with the terms of the appropriations and section 36A of the Audit Act. Each year the Committee examines expenditures from the Advance to the Minister for Finance. Such expenditure should be confined to urgent and unforeseeable requirements for which provision could not have been made in the original or additional estimates. Among the matters covered in this report are: The Department of Defence's problems and delays in meeting tax obligations, and difficulties in the staffing of positions and the management of salaries in the Department of Territories. I commend the report to honourable members. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(4.29) —I move: Excise Tariff Proposals No. 4 (1987) and Customs Tariff Proposals Nos. 7 to 9 (1987). The tariff proposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 and the Customs Tariff Act 1982. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 4 (1987) and Customs Tariff Proposals Nos. 7 and 8 (1987) formally place before Parliament, as required by law, tariff alterations made by notices published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette during the recent recess. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 7 (1987), operative on and from 10 March 1987, implement the Government's decision on the Industries Assistance Commission's Report on the power electronics industry. The Government has decided on a uniform general tariff rate of 20 per cent for most power electronic goods under reference. Static converters, rectifiers and rectifying apparatus become dutiable at a general tariff rate of 25 per cent for one year and then phase to the long term rate of 20 per cent. All programmable controllers become free of duty and subject to bounty assistance. The Government has decided not to change the tariff rates on electro-mechanical relays and switchgear as it believes that the Commission had cast its net too widely by regarding these goods as under reference in its inquiry. The 20 per cent rate for the power electronic goods industry aligns its assistance arrangements with those of other electronics-based activities, particularly the communications industry. Excise Tariff Proposals No. 4 (1987), operative on and from 14 March 1987, provide for altered rates of excise duty on certain refined petroleum products resulting from the Government's decisions on the pricing of indigenous crude oil and related issues. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 8 (1987), operative on and from the same date, provide for corresponding alterations to rates of customs duty. Rates of diesel fuel rebate have also been altered in conjunction with the changes I have just outlined. Eligible primary production continues to attract a 100 per cent duty rebate and the altered rate for eligible mining operations effectively means no change in duty payable. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 9 (1987), operative on and from 1 April 1986, provide for changes in the duty treatment of goods of New Zealand origin. The operative date of these proposals gives the maximum period available, under Customs regulations, for the payment of refunds of Customs duty on the goods involved. Mutual agreement has been reached between the Australian and New Zealand governments-if that is not a tautology-that child safety and booster seats used in motor vehicles are not covered by either the provisions of the Australia New Zealand closer economic relations trade agreement furniture arrangement or the ANZCERTA interim arrangement on motor vehicles. Accordingly, such seats should have been subject to the normal liberalisation provisions of Article 4 of the agreement. The 10 per cent tariff currently applying should therefore have commenced phasing from 1 January 1983 and have been removed on and from 1 January 1984. The relevant change in these proposals totally removes the duty. The current 5 per cent duty on ball point pens and refills of New Zealand origin is also being removed. I see the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) looks immensely relieved. This change follows consultation under ANZCERTA to provide liberalised arrangements for these goods. Summaries of alterations contained in these proposals have been prepared and are being circulated for the information of honourable members. May I say that, curiously, these tariff proposals never seem to attract quite the degree of rapt attention in the House that one might normally expect. I commend the proposals to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Porter) adjourned. Debate resumed from 18 March, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr PORTER(Barker)(4.32) —The Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 2], which the Hawke Labor Government has introduced into the House of Representatives for the second time, is part of a most deceitful and misleading campaign ever managed by an Australian Government. The Government continues to blatantly mislead the public by saying that the identity card will be effective in combating tax evasion and welfare fraud and that those opposing the legislation are friends of the evaders and rorters. The Government's claim is in direct conflict with the findings of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card which investigated the proposal. It is contrary to the report of the Standing Committee on Expenditure entitled `A Taxing Problem' and it is contrary to the findings of five Auditor-General's reports on the massive loss of revenue as a result of Australian Taxation Office inefficiency. Despite the overwhelming weight of evidence that the ID card will not work, the Government continues to pursue the proposal, not because it believes that the card will be effective but because it believes it can fool the people and put heat on the coalition by making it a double dissolution Bill. Let me remind the House of the findings of the Joint Select Committee. The Committee was established with the single purpose of reviewing the Government's ID card proposal and it found: Having considered the Government's proposal for a national identification system, as well as alternatives such as the use of photographic cards and the extension of the use of the current tax file system, the majority of the Committee rejects all proposals for the issuing of identity cards, with or without a photograph. Why did the Committee take this decision? It stated: The majority of the Committee takes this view because such proposals fail to address the major problems which were to be overcome by the introduction of the national ID system, namely: to combat tax evasion; to reduce welfare fraud; and to identify illegal migrants. Again, I remind the House that the report was signed by members of the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia and the Australian Democrats. The Committee spent months reviewing the Government's proposal. It had access to experts in the field and took evidence from the departments that were to use the ID card. Nevertheless, the Government ignored that expert Committee's findings and continues to peddle the dishonest and misleading line that the ID card will stop welfare fraud and tax evasion. The coalition believes that the people of this country have a fundamental right to expect that their elected representatives will ensure the efficient administration of the departments under their control so as to protect them from those who are operating dishonestly within the tax and welfare system. The people of this country have a right to expect that the Government will efficiently administer the laws of the country so that everyone contributes his fair share of tax. People have a right to expect that the eligibility criteria established for the payment of welfare benefits will be strictly applied and that only those who are truly entitled to benefit will receive it. They have a right to expect the Government to know which of those people who have entered the country temporarily have stayed on illegally and are operating within our system illegally. Finally, and very importantly, the people of Australia have a right to expect governments to safeguard individual rights to privacy and civil liberties. Similar objectives were identified by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) in his second reading speech on this legislation. But, regrettably, this Government has dismally failed to meet those objectives. The reason why the Government has failed is that it has run an open door welfare policy and an inefficient Taxation Office. It has proved to be grossly incompetent in administering public programs. The ID card legislation is a cynical attempt to transfer the blame away from itself. The coalition remains firmly opposed to the ID card proposal and we will remain opposed because it will not stop the creation of false identities. As a consequence, it will not stop identity fraud and evasion fostered by this Government's totally incompetent administration. It will increase the size of government by the employment of at least 2,150 new public servants. It is not cost effective. In fact, given the successful computerisation of the Tax Office, the ID card will cost the Government and the business sector more than it raises in revenue. In its present form it will cause chaos for the banking and other sectors as credit card and other bank transactions become unworkable. It is the most significant erosion of our individual rights of privacy and individual liberties ever to be undertaken by an Australian government. The Government has failed to address the problems of principle that we and others have raised. It has failed to address the problems of detail. Instead, the Government has mounted a cynical and simplistic campaign based on the Goebbels principle that, if you repeat a lie often enough, it will be believed. For example, how often have we heard the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) say that the card will stop fraud and evasion and that only those who are rorting the system have anything to fear? Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, as I shall explain in a moment. The Government claims that we have no policy and yet a substantial proportion of the Minister's second reading speech was a feeble attempt to try to undermine our alternative policies. The Government claims that the proposal is cost effective. But it has totally ignored the cost to business and it continues to refuse to disclose its estimate of those costs. The daddy of all the distortions is the Government's claim that the ID card legislation will actually enhance our rights to privacy and the civil liberties of the individual. Through a mixture of misrepresentation, exaggeration, distortion and scaremongering, the Government has sought to sell this massively expensive, massively bureaucratic and massively intrusive ID card by painting those who oppose it as friends of the tax cheats and welfare rorters. As I have said, this must rank as the most dishonest campaign ever undertaken by an Australian government. Let me focus on some of the fundamental flaws in the proposal which the Government has failed to answer. One of the most important elements of a successful program to use ID cards is the prevention of the creation of false identities and the issue of false cards. The Government was clearly caught in a bind. If it enforced very strict proof of identity requirements it may be difficult for people, including refugees in this country, to satisfactorily establish their identity. In addition, a very strict proof of identity procedure would involve long delays and, given that the Government wants to issue all 15 million Australians with cards over a relatively short period, the task would be impossible. Therefore, the Government settled on less rigorous proof of identity procedures-indeed, less rigorous than identity procedures required to obtain a passport. The result will be that those with a will to do so will be able to create a false identity and obtain a false ID card in that false name. We know that even with the strict proof of identity requirements for a passport false passports are obtained. The Australian Federal Police have advised me that organised crime is already establishing false names in government records to ensure that they can apply in those false names for ID cards and that, when a check is made as to whether the name of the person applying is known to government, it will obviously appear on government records. If it is possible for people to obtain false ID cards, the central purpose of the ID card falls to the ground. The simple facts are that the ID card will not stop the generation of false identities and, if that is the case, clearly it will not stop people working under false names, claiming welfare benefits under false names or opening interest paying deposits in false names and so on. The Minister referred to the question of the creation of false identities and he chose his words very carefully. He did not say that it would be impossible to create false identities; rather he said that he believed it would be more difficult to create false identities. But the question is: More difficult than what? Is he saying more difficult than currently, as it is very easy to create a false identity at present because so many of the States issue birth certificates on the receipt of a telephone call and the payment of an application fee. Are we going from a situation where it is very easy to obtain a false identity to a situation where it is just easy to obtain a false identity? The situation is made even more ridiculous by the Government establishing the means under clause 36 whereby a piece of paper can be substituted in the place of the supposedly high integrity ID card. If one cannot readily obtain a false ID card, it will be very easy to obtain a certificate which can be used instead of the ID card. A mere certificate will be easily forged or duplicated. I repeat that the Government's ID card proposal will not stop the creation of false identities and as such the whole proposal is fundamentally flawed. For argument's sake, let us say that the Government changed the proof of identity requirements and made them extremely strict so that it was extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to obtain a false ID card. In that event, are the other claims that the Government makes in relation to the card correct? For example, is the card going to be cost effective? The Government claims that the cost to the Federal Government of the introduction of the ID card is some $760m. That is a very conservative estimate. The cost is more likely to be around $1,000m. The Government has excluded from its costing the cost to other levels of government-State and local-and has ignored the cost to the individual and the cost to business. The cost to business of the ID card is likely to be around $2,000m. The Government contests that figure, saying that the 2:1 ratio generally applied to the cost to the private sector of government regulation is not applicable in this case. It failed to explain why it is not applicable. All it has said is that the 2:1 formula-that is, for every dollar spent by the Government on regulation, business costs will be $2-established by the Business Regulation Review Unit is not applicable. We have not been told whether the Business Regulation Review Unit has suggested that the appropriate ratio to be used is more or less than 2:1. What we do know, however, is that the Business Regulation Review Unit opposed the introduction of the ID card because of the massive cost of business compliance. I applied to the Government in mid-November for details of the estimates for the cost of compliance with the ID card. Only after I appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal did the Government agree to provide me with details, but it will only provide them to me on 21 April this year-that is, after the debate on the ID card legislation is scheduled to be concluded. If the Government is confident of its case, why is it refusing to provide these details? The Minister continually refers to the cost of compliance for the banks and says that, because it will cost them something under $100m, the cost to the business sector could not be $2,000m. I say to the Minister that the compliance costs of the banks are likely to be minimal compared with other areas of the private sector. The significant costs will be for the private employers, stockbrockers, stock agents, real estate agents and so on, all the small businesses which under this legislation will be required not only to record the ID card number of their clients but also to provide details to the Australian Taxation Office of each transaction made. Most of those small businesses are not currently required to report transactions to the Tax Office. Hundreds of thousands of those businesses are not highly computerised and, therefore, to meet the Tax Office's new reporting requirements they will have to report separately each transaction for taxation purposes. This will be a mammoth task. Providing that the banks' computer systems can handle an additional 12 digit number on each record they keep, it will be comparatively easy for them to meet the Government's requirements. It will not be so easy and it will be far more expensive for all the other small businesses in this country. I repeat: The cost to the banks of compliance with the ID card proposal is likely to be the smallest of the costs to the private sector. Whilst the Government has grossly underestimated the cost of introducing and complying with the card by some $2,000m it has also grossly overestimated the likely revenue from the card. The major area of expected revenue is tax and the largest area of supposed evaded tax is undisclosed interest. The Auditor-General has issued five reports in recent times on the administrative shortcomings in the Australian Tax Office. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure has also reported on the Australian Taxation Office in a report called `A Taxing Problem'. The Expenditure Committee said: . . . in its initial inquiries became aware of a number of serious shortcomings within certain ATO philosophies and operations. These shortcomings indicated inefficiencies within ATO's taxation assessment and collection operations, and suggested that significant losses to taxation revenue were being incurred. Unnecessary costs have also been imposed upon the taxpayer. The Committee went on to say: . . . it was estimated by the Auditor-General, in the interest and dividend area alone, that between $308m and $512m is lost in taxation revenue each year by taxpayer non-disclosure of income and subsequent non-detection by ATO. Given that these figures represent only one source of income, taxation revenue losses through non-detection of total taxpayer incomes could conceivably amount to several billion dollars each year . . . In large measure it can largely be attributed to ATO's internal inadequacies. It went on to say that it was `astounded that the ATO had persevered so long with this labour intensive approach when funding for ADP acquisitions has been so significantly underspent over recent years'. The Committee reported: The ATO has over a ten year period underspent by at least $49.0m its appropriations for computer plant and equipment. The Expenditure Committee concluded: It has been estimated that each year $2,000m in tax revenue is lost as a result of deliberate or inadvertent understatement and non-reporting of taxpayers' income. Because of the inadequacy of ATO's current information and checking system, the probability of detection is low and as such this form of tax evasion continues virtually unfettered. The Expenditure Committee went on to say: The cause of ATO's current inadequacies can be attributed to the aggregation of a number of factors. The lack of computerisation inter-twined with the continuation of labour intensive work practices has certainly retarded ATO's efficient operation. It is this surprising adherence to labour intensive practices that has created many of ATO's woes. It is as though the ATO has been caught in a time warp. It found that ATO's inability to adapt its operations to a changing environment has really compromised the effectiveness of ATO's revenue collection abilities. In other words, the Expenditure Committee found that some thousands of millions of dollars of tax revenue were forgone each year because of grossly inadequate administration and the lack of automatic data processing facilities in the Tax Office. It is worth recalling that the Expenditure Committee consists of representatives of both sides of the House and includes Labor members-the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford), the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free), the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly), the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore), the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) and the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons). The Government will undoubtedly respond by saying that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has recently announced a major computer upgrading program for the ATO in response to the Expenditure Committee's report. I welcome that commitment, but I say to the Government: `You can't have it both ways. If you accept the Expenditure Committee's report and invest hundreds of millions of dollars in computer upgrading because you believe, as the Committee did, and as the coalition does, that such action will overcome the problems of identified tax evasion, you can't claim the same revenue as being a benefit of the ID card. It is a simple case of double counting'. The revenue estimates given to the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card are near enough to being exactly the same revenue estimates as the Expenditure Committee has disclosed. What is more, both the Joint Select Committee on an Australia card and the Expenditure Committee came to the same conclusions-that there needed to be a major improvement in the administrative efficiency of the Tax Office to garner in this revenue rather than pursue the ID card proposal. It is, therefore, absolutely wrong for the Government to state that it is confident that the revenue from the ID card will exceed the cost. I repeat: The Government has understated the cost and grossly overestimated the revenue as a result of double counting. It has overestimated tax revenue by as much as $700m a year. It is interesting that the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) in the area of welfare fraud is widely claiming the success of recent Department of Social Security crackdowns. These crackdowns are, in fact, only a tightening up of the previous slack administration of eligibility criteria for benefit. What is important is that again the Government is acknowledging that without the ID card it is supposedly cracking down on welfare fraud, something which previously it had been saying it could do only with an ID card. Not only will the ID card cost business a fortune, but also the Bill will severely disrupt everyday transactions. The Australian Bankers Association, without commenting on the merit of the proposal, has made it clear that, unless there are amendments to the Bill, in a substantial number of cases it will be necessary for it to refuse to transfer funds, to refuse cash withdrawals and other transactions through automatic teller machines and to refuse bank credit transactions when the account records are not able to be validated. Further, the banks say that the ordinary use of credit cards such as Bankcard, Visa and Mastercard will be unworkable unless the legislation is changed. On 5 February this year the Minister announced the Government's decision to make minor amendments to the legislation. He said that that demonstrated its `willingness to accept any reasonable suggestions'. In typical fashion, the Government has now broken that commitment and has indicated that it will not amend the legislation. Mr Blunt —He got rolled. Mr PORTER —Maybe he did get rolled but, again, it is just another example of how this Government cannot be trusted to keep its word. It clearly has dropped all pretences of wanting workable ID card legislation and now is interested only in establishing a double dissolution trigger. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that the Government wanted to push the legislation through in a hurry to see what Budget allocations for next year were necessary. The amendments would not have delayed the passage of the legislation and, as the Minister announced these amendments almost two months ago, surely they are prepared and ready to be introduced. Not only is the legislation flawed in principle, as the Australian Bankers Association has indicated, but it is also flawed in practice. The Government falsely claims that confidential health, tax and social security records will remain secure under the ID card proposal. A similar claim was made in relation to confidential Medicare records, but some of them have been leaked and they appeared on the front page of a Sydney morning newspaper. The Minister claims that limitations on access to computer records ensure confidential Medicare data is kept secure, that only 20 people have access to the data and that, when they do access it, their access is logged. But the true situation was revealed in a leaked Special Minister of State document. That document states that the Australian Federal Police investigating the leaking of confidential Medicare records said that they had identified 197 people throughout Australia who had access to the information notwithstanding the fact that only 20 possess computer access codes. In other words, the same system which is to be invoked to maintain security of confidential records under the ID card proposal has been found by the Federal Police not to work. What is more significant is that, for the first time under the ID card proposal, tax, health and social security records will be linked with a common identifier and, therefore, all the very personal and highly sensitive material will be much more readily accessible. Of course, there are also going to be some 2,150 new public servants administering the ID card proposal and accessing the computer data terminals. Finally, and significantly, the ID card legislation constitutes a serious erosion of our individual privacy and civil liberties. No longer under this legislation will the Government be responsible to the people; rather, the people will be responsible to the Government. In other words, as individuals we will have to prove our identity to a public servant in order to obtain an ID card. We will not be able to operate in our community without an ID card. Despite the Government's protestations, the card will have to be carried all the time to undertake almost every financial transaction. This point has been amplified by the Australian Bankers Association submission, which indicates that without the card it would be difficult to undertake bank transactions, including credit card transactions. The Prime Minister has repeatedly claimed that the Opposition opposes the ID card proposal because, he claims, we support tax cheats and dole bludgers. The lie is given to this statement because the Opposition has consistently linked its rejection of the ID card proposal to alternative, less costly, less invasive and more effective proposals. The coalition, in government, will establish a centralised computer register of births, deaths and marriages. In the area of tax, we will ensure that the Australian Taxation Office immediately upgrades its technological capability, undertaking at the same time a review of all administrative procedures within the Tax Office to make sure that the tax department makes use of all the information available to it. We will require the Tax Office to enforce existing legislation requiring interest-paying agencies to provide to the Tax Office information relating to all dividend and interest payments. We will require all interest-paying institutions to record the name, address and date of birth of account holders so the information can be matched with tax returns. In the area of social security: With respect to welfare fraud, the coalition will impose strict identification procedures on recipients of social security payments, requiring the use of prime identification documents such as birth, marriage or citizenship certificates. We will not accept, as this Government does, second class proof of identity. We will enforce the existing eligibility tests with regular checks. For example, for the unemployment benefit we will enforce the work test and we will introduce work for the unemployment benefit scheme. We will increase field officer checks and give them power to investigate all accusations of fraud. Labor refuses to give them this power. Our alternative is $2,735m more cost-effective than the ID card and it does not require enormous community expenditure or the massive intrusion into the personal affairs of every Australian which is involved with the Hawke Labor Government's ID card proposal. We oppose the Bill. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(5.02) —I am very pleased to be associated, once again, with the Bill concerned with the Australia Card. I am happy to talk about some of the myths surrounding the Australia Card which are often fabricated by the Opposition for political ends. I believe that it is time that some of those myths were put to rest. Mr Deputy Speaker, to give you some idea of the unscrupulous manner in which the Opposition has sought to slurry this debate, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has been quoted on numerous occasions as saying that the Opposition would try to make the general debate on the Australia Card like the bitter and emotional fight over the fringe benefits tax and the Bill of Rights `all rolled into one'. Mr Hollis —All scare tactics. Mr SIMMONS —Absolutely. That type of attitude is not in the best interests of the people of this country. Those who live out that sentiment are thinking of themselves first and their fellow Australians a very poor second. In my electorate I have done my best to promote discussion of the Australia Card and have willingly given information about the Card to anyone who has sought it. Having done that, I am very happy to say that the vast majority of people, with all the information before them-and that is important-have made up their own minds to support the idea in overwhelming numbers. What people have been saying to me, and saying nationally in opinion polls, is that they want the Card and the benefits that it will so obviously provide. A news poll survey conducted for the Australian newspaper in November 1986 in all States-country and city areas-found that 67 per cent of people were in favour of some form of national identification system, and 61 per cent were in favour of the Government's proposal. What to me is so incomprehensible about the Opposition's attitude to the Australia Card is that it is knowingly fighting against the wishes of the people of this country-its own electors included. It begs one to ask: Why is it doing so? The answer comes fairly easily: It seeks only to discredit the honest efforts of this Government to improve the tax and welfare systems of this country in the vain hope of scoring a few cheap political points. By the Opposition's actions, it is clear that it would be happy for the situation to remain as it is, with taxpayers footing the bill for some $3 billion a year lost through tax evasion and between $150m and $450m lost in welfare fraud. The point that must be made is that, without a high integrity form of identification, the situation will get worse and obviously there will be more abuses. I am serious when I say that the future effectiveness of our social security and taxation systems is under threat because of the type of haemorrhaging I have mentioned. Our whole welfare system is under question from those who rightly feel that it is unfair to be paying people benefits to which they are not entitled. It is equally unfair for ordinary, honest taxpayers-usually pay as you earn taxpayers-to be asked to bear the continuing burden of tax avoidance. As a community of Australians living at this time and in this place we have made an implicit pact with one another through our current laws and government. We silently recognise that we all pay into a collective fund from which services are provided for all of us. Also from this fund those in real need-the old, the jobless and the destitute-are aided by the rest of us. However, there are people who have placed themselves outside the community and, through the use of false identities, are not paying their fair share of tax or are gaining payments from the Department of Social Security that they certainly do not deserve. I am tired of it; you are tired of it, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that the whole community is very tired of it. It is time that we did something about it. Some of the things that the Opposition has been saying have been thinly disguised attempts to distress people for no reason whatsoever. These distortions include statements that the Card will become some sort of internal passport; that it will be used to form dossiers on people; and that a type of police state will develop. They paint a picture of some Orwellian nightmare which simply has no basis whatsoever in the Australia Card legislation. I have been trying to point out that the Australia Card and the Australia Card Register, which stores the information on the Card, will be used for identification purposes only. The Register has only the most basic identification facts on it-that is, name, address, date of birth, digitised photograph and signature-as well as a record of the verifying documents used in establishing one's identity. Only authorised staff from the Department of Social Security, the Tax Office and the Health Insurance Commission will have access to the information, which is used only to identify a person. Let me explain how it will work. At present the Department of Social Security has hundreds of thousands of people on record as receiving a benefit. When applying for a benefit, the recipient produces such things as a birth certificate, bills, accounts or insurance policies. We know that at present all those documents are relatively easy to gain under a false identity. What will happen after the introduction of the Card is that a person applying for a benefit will produce his card; the card number will be used to link the applicant to an identity on the Register, and that is all. Let me emphasise that the Australia Card will not be used to store information on people; it is purely a checking advice by which one person's number is linked to an identity. The same principle will apply when people open bank accounts, conduct real estate transactions, send money overseas, open an account with a produce agent or stockbroker, or any other of a limited number of times when people have avoided tax by the use of a fraudulent identity. The uses of the Card are specifically outlined in the legislation. The limited number of times that the Card is needed means that people need not carry it with them. Certainly, it is not compulsory to carry it, as is specified in the legislation. It must be clear from this that the arguments claiming that the Card will be easy to defraud are quite ridiculous. In the unlikely event that someone produced a false card, the subterfuge would be detected as soon as the card number was called up on the Australia Card Register and no corresponding identity, or the wrong identity, was found. Furthermore, the legislation has been left open to allow the Government to use the most up-to-date security techniques in the manufacture of the Card itself, including a digitised photo and signature that are physically part of the Card and not just stuck on. Two areas of the Card that the Opposition has been very quiet on are the Data Protection Agency and the companion legislation to the Australia Card Bill, the Privacy Bill. It is interesting to note that during the debate across the length and breadth of this country there was very little discussion on these aspects of the Bills that were introduced by the Government. The reason that the Opposition has been so silent on these matters, I suggest, is that it makes absolutely ludicrous its claims that the Card will be used to form dossiers and to give the Government closer control over the population. The Data Protection Agency is formed in Part VII of the Australia Card Bill and gives individuals comprehensive protection of their privacy in regard to the information held about them on the Australia Card Register. The role of the Data Protection Agency includes the issuing of guidelines to ensure that information kept on the Register is both accurate and confidential, inquiring into complaints that the guidelines governing privacy have allegedly been breached, researching and monitoring developments in computer technology and its affects on privacy, and supervising the way in which the Authority keeps the Register created from the Births, Deaths and Marriages Register. The Data Protection Agency is formed as part of the Australia Card Bill to ensure the preservation of individual rights after the establishment of the card. However, the Data Protection Agency is also the basic regulatory body of the Privacy Bill. Under this Bill the functions of the Data Protection Agency are extended to apply to the records held on individuals by all other Commonwealth departments. In addition, this Bill establishes 11 information protection principles which will apply to all information held in all Commonwealth departments. These principles protect individuals so that Government departments cannot collect information about them except for a specific purpose such as to provide a service nominated by the individual. Mr Deputy Speaker, if you think about some of those aspects you will see that this particular legislation will go down in Australian history as a landmark piece of legislation as far as privacy is concerned. The information protection principles protect privacy so that information is up to date and accurate, so that information collected is stored securely, so that people have access to information held on them, so that information can be altered by the subject if necessary, and so that people are made aware of the purpose for which information is being collected. A number of other measures prohibit the gathering and maintenance of records for reasons other than the performance of the legitimate functions of the department. Does this sound like the Government setting itself up to be a big brother? This is proof of the effect of our Government, I suggest, to limit its power over individuals and to increase privacy in this community. As I have already pointed out, the Card will be needed for only a limited range of functions. Not only this, it will be an offence for anyone to ask to see it, including the police, other than those authorised by the legislation. There is no danger now or in the future of any of the States extending the use of the Australia Card. This is one of the furphies that seems to be aboard at present. The Commonwealth is empowered to establish a national identification system under its constitutional powers for census and statistics, social security and taxation. Similarly, the Constitution bars the States from extending the uses of the card as the Australia Card legislation specifically limits the uses of the card. The States do not have the power to contradict legitimate Federal legislation. Section 109 of the Constitution states: When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid. The Opposition says that the legislation inconveniences rural people because of distance. Of course there are sections of the Bill that provide for certificates of identity so that a rural producer need not present his Card in person to the produce agent or to any other group that needs evidence of one's identity. The Opposition will also try to tell us that the card will affect the little people. This is simply not true. There is no way that this legislation could possibly hurt the person next door who goes out on the weekend to collect a load of wood for his neighbour for $20. The little people usually do not have large amounts of cash in bank accounts in false names and the little people do not usually buy and sell real estate with cash. The Opposition may even try to tell people that the card will somehow lead to massive costs for small business. But small business will have only to see their employees' cards once and record the numbers, and they will have to identify their clients in a few, strictly defined circumstances. In framing this legislation the Government has taken into account every consideration possible of individual rights and the convenience of the public. At the same time, we feel that we have preserved another very important right of the individual, the right not to be ripped off by tax cheats and social security fraud, the people who have shown absolute contempt for their fellow Australians and our own rights. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(5.16) —This afternoon we are not really debating the Australia Card Bill brought in by this Government, rather we are debating the political motives of the Hawke Labor Government. The honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) discussed statements made by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) earlier this year when he suggested that amendments would be made to the identity card legislation before it was reintroduced to the House. I believe the Minister said-if he was accurately reported-that minor amendments would be made to the legislation to take into account the concerns of some sections of the community about the civil liberty aspects of the legislation. A Cabinet meeting was held in downtown Calare in a valiant attempt to prop up the failing fortunes of the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons). Let me tell honourable members that they are failing rapidly. We have a surprise lined up for the honourable member and he might as well give up now. Cabinet members discussed the politics of this ID card and they said: `What we desperately need to do is somehow have the circumstances in front of us so we can call a double dissolution. What bit of legislation have we got up our sleeves? We have the ID card'. Someone then said: `There is a problem. The Minister for Health, good old Dr Blewett, has promised to amend it, and under the Constitution there cannot be a double dissolution unless the legislation is exactly the same, right down to the same i's and t's, the crossings and the dots on those letters. What has to happen is that Dr Blewett had to change his mind'. What do we have here now? We have the same exact legislation, word perfect. What is the motive? It is not a desire to get the ID card implemented, it is not the concern expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to find out what the cost would be so the Budget estimate processes can be done, it is a cynical attempt to set up the preconditions for a double dissolution. We must also ask why the Government wants to run a double dissolution on an issue such as the ID card. The real answer to that question is that it is terrified of fighting an election on the real issues. We have the pretender to the job of Treasurer, the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) wandering around this place putting up alternative economic policies in an attempt to get the Treasurer out of the mess that he has got the economy into. The Government is not prepared to debate high interest rates, or high rates of unemployment. It is not prepared to address the question of fiscal restraint and to cut expenditure. It is terrified of having to live up to the undertaking to bring in a mini-Budget on 14 May. It would do just about anything to avoid bringing down a statement on 14 May because it knows that it cannot do it. Not only has it got the abysmal support of the community now, but also tomorrow's opinion polls will say that the Labor Party is in trouble again. I invite the Minister for Health who is at the table and his paltry handful of back benchers-four of them are sitting there; that is the Government's commitment to this ID legislation, four people to put its case on the ID card-to have a look at an advanced copy of the Bulletin tomorrow, and eat your hearts out. I notice that the honourable member for Calare has left the chamber. He has probably gone to telephone a few constituents to bolster his failing support out there by trying to convince them that he is doing a good job. This legislation is here simply for political convenience to open up the Government's options. A number of things must be said about the contribution made by the honourable member for Calare. He suggested that the ID card would not be used to store information about people. Of course it will not; it is a bit of plastic. There has been some suggestion by the Health Commission that it will have the capacity to store data additional to what the Government suggested would be on it, but I will not go into that because I am sure that other speakers will. The ID card will provide a number for every man, woman and child in Australia-all 16 million of us. Heaven help us when we go in to the various offices to be photographed and present our birth certificates, then go back to sign and pick up the card. I would not like to be the Minister responsible for administering that mess. We should look at what happened overseas. On the Minister's political epitaph will be `the man who tried to dog-tag all Australians'. No matter what the Minister has done, no matter what mess he has made of Medicare and no matter what catastrophe he will inflict upon us with his inadequate acquired immune deficiency syndrome program, his political epitaph will be `the Minister for dog tags'. The ID card will be used to establish a pattern of life for every Australian. The various financial activities of every Australian will be able to be linked, because that number will have to be left every time a financial transaction is carried out. The result will be that over a period it will be possible to put together a complete dossier on the financial transactions that an individual has had. The Government knows that that is what it will be used for, but it is pretending that that is not the case. The reality is: How can the Government achieve its objectives without linking the various sources of data? The Government needs the number to provide the linkage, and it tells us that, but it will not go the next step and say: `We can push the button and bring in all this data from other sources and put it all together to determine exactly what you have been doing'. The Government could know exactly what our lifestyle is, where our income comes from, where it is spent and how our wealth is stored, so that it could tax us if it wanted to introduce a wealth tax. That is what it is all about. Dr Charlesworth —We are already doing it. Mr BLUNT —The honourable member for Perth says that the Government is already doing it. The pity is that the Australian Taxation Office does not already do it. It is so slack that it does not even use the information it has and it cannot even use the money allocated to it to buy computers. With great fanfare Commissioner Boucher finally announced the other day that he was going to spend his allocation on computers. That is the greatest condemnation of the efficiency of a department that I have ever come across. The honourable member for Calare talked about false cards. He said that we will be able to identify a false card because as soon as the number is put into the computer it will ring `tilt' and we will know that it is a false card. He did not say that, according to the Government, the only people who will have computers are those in the Medicare office and the Tax Office and access will be restricted to the computers in those offices. The major users of these cards will be the financial institutions. The implication of what the honourable member for Calare said was that eventually financial institutions-people will be required to obtain this card before they can conduct business-will have to have real time computers so that they can punch in the number and determine whether or not it is a real number. When will we get some honesty about this? If what the honourable member for Calare has said about identifying false cards is true, when will the Minister tell us what the requirements on the private sector will be in relation to access to the records for the purpose of validating the cards? It will have to be real time, unless the Government is to provide the financial institutions with updated records on a 24-hour basis. If we believe what the Government has said, I could get a false card on 1 July, trade on it for 12 months, then lodge my return on 30 June and about three months later when it is pro- cessed someone might realise that the number is false and then come looking for me. Of course, if I am dishonest enough to have a false card I will be long gone and will be operating on another false card. When are we going to get a bit of reality from the Government about what the card as it is proposed will and will not do and what it is intended to do further down the track? The reality is that any bureaucrat who asks for this ID card, because it will help him or her to do the job better, is admitting that he or she is not doing the job properly at present. We know that the Tax Office has all the information and data it could possibly need to track down a lot of people who are not paying tax on undisclosed interest and dividends. We learnt the other day that the Tax Office does not even require the Reserve Bank of Australia to provide a list of people who get interest on Australian savings bonds. Lots of small investors bought the old Aussie Bonds and the Reserve Bank gave to the Tax Office the list of people who got interest on those bonds, but the Tax Office did nothing with the information. All the computer techniques around the world are available to the Tax Office to match all this data, but the Tax Office does not do it at present because it is slack, inefficient and is living in the 1950s. The bureaucrats, the Minister and the Government know that but, as usual, when they are in trouble they ask for a bigger and bettter weapon to hit the Australian public over the head with. The bigger and better weapon this time around is the ID card. The same thing applies in the Department of Social Security. We are told by some people that social security fraud will be eliminated with the ID card. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) does not support the ID card, nor does his Department. His Department has said that the ID card will not save a cent. The Department has said that it will not rely on the ID card as a prime source of identification; it will still look at other ways of identifying beneficiaries. The Department has said that less than one per cent of social security fraud and overpayment is related to false identity. The Government and the Minister know that and the people of Australia ought to be told the truth about it. They should be told that they are being sold this ID card on false pretences because it will do precious little for the Department of Social Security, which will not use it or rely upon it. We have had evidence from senior officers in the benefits control section of the Department of Social Security that they will not rely on the ID card. The real answer to the problem of social security fraud-apart from a change of government and a new Minister-is better administration. If the Department identified its existing clients properly, by requiring birth certificates, marriage certificates or certificates of citizenship, we might have positive identification. But under this Government's administration people can identify themselves in the Department of Social Security with a driver's licence. Driver's licences can be bought in any back alley in King's Cross in Sydney. People can identify themselves with a trade union membership card or even with a school report card. What sort of identification procedure is that? It is a joke! We are going to spend $1 billion or there-abouts identifying 16 million Australians because some of the three million people who are clients of the Department of Social Security are ripping off the system. The logic of the statement that I am about to make is irrefutable: It is cheaper and easier to identify three million Australians than 16 million Australians. Well the Minister for Health might write that down, because I would like him to tell me why it is not cheaper and easier to identify three million Australians than 16 million Australians. He knows it and the Government knows it. The reason the Government keeps running the social security argument in terms of the ID card is that it is the only thing that has any legs. The Australian community is fed up with the open door, give away policy of this Government in relation to social security. The Department almost has the motto `You breed them, we feed them' under this Government. No one enforces the checks and balances effectively, and the Department has industrial strife. The Government has come into this place and told us what it will do to stop the rip-off, but the unions have banned all the procedures, which were only a reinstatement of the procedures that existed under the previous Government. In order to clean up social security fraud we have to recognise that there has to be a balance of entitlements and obligations. If people are to get welfare they will have to identify themselves and prove that they comply with the eligibility requirements. It would be a good idea if this Government recognised that the Australian taxpayer is fed up with funding people who are ripping off the system, and imposed on those people the obligations that are part and parcel of the welfare system. Not only should people identify themselves but also they should be required to come into the Department of Social Security to prove that their circumstances have not changed. The Department of Social Security's employees should be given the authority, power and support to enforce the qualifications for getting the benefit. It is not well known, but I will tell honourable members, that field officers of the Department of Social Security are not empowered by legislation to ask questions of clients. They have no legislative authority to ask questions of clients. What possible capacity do they have to enforce the eligibility requirements for social security benefits without that basic right? They can put a written question to a client, but they cannot ask a question. The effectiveness of field officers in the Department of Social Security is reduced considerably by that limitation. The Government should act immediately to give them the power to ask questions-not to require answers, but to ask questions. The Government should give sufficient resources to the field staff and investigative staff of the Department of Social Security to follow through. The Government also ought to do something about the industrial relations situation in the Department, particularly in New South Wales, where every time the Government makes a move in this area the unions ban it. No checks are being made at present, as the Government told us there would be, on unemployment beneficiaries or supporting parent beneficiaries. The reason is that the unions have banned this. There is an open door policy at present. This Government had an amnesty on social security and said to people: `If you are ripping the system off come and tell us. We will forgive you and you can keep the money'. After that the Government said it would prosecute but it is not prosecuting. It tells us it is going to take 10,000 people off the unemployment lists between now and June. Last year it prosecuted 1,900 people. What is going to happen to the 10,000 people it is supposedly going to take off social security benefits between now and June? The reality is that we could not reasonably expect the Government to prosecute them. The Director of Public Prosecutions told me that the problem is not catching social security cheats but getting this Government and the Department to have the backbone actually to go ahead with the prosecution. That is the real problem. Until we get a commitment to that there will be a continuation of haemorrhaging and theft from the Department of Social Security. As I have said, the ID card will do nothing about it because less than one per cent of fraud is related to false identity. I would like to refer to a number of other issues in the limited time available to me. The Government says that this card will do something about stopping tax evasion. Tax evasion can be stopped if the Australian Taxation Office uses the information it has at present. The ID card will do nothing about the cash economy. If one is paid in cash and spends cash and does not put the money anywhere near a bank account the ID card will not identify that money, where one got it from or where one spends or stores it, particularly if one puts it under the bed. There is no way that the cost of another 2,100 public servants and the establishment of new Medicare offices can be justified. This card will not deliver the goods that the Government is promising and there are cheaper and better ways to deal with the problem. The cost for business of compliance with this ID card is astronomical. In an economic climate when Australian business is already burdened by such measures as the fringe benefits tax and the heavy legislative burden of this Government, business is complaining about the cost of compliance with this legislation. The Government's own Business Regulation Review Unit considered this proposal originally and recommended against it. The Prime Minister suddenly thought that he had better do something about getting the small business vote and he set up the Business Regulation Review Unit. When it had a look at the ID card proposal it threw its hands up in the air and said: `Business cannot afford it. We recommend against it because of the cost to business'. If business thought the FBT was a problem it will think the ID card is a monumental problem. The shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Barker, has previously spoken about the consequences of the ID card for that basic Australian piece of equipment, the credit card. The consequences of this legislation for those companies that operate credit cards and for those people who use credit cards as part of their day to day transactions are absolutely horrific. It is obviously an unintended consequence and I am sure at some stage the Government will be forced to amend the legislation. Why it does not recognise that this country cannot afford additional costs, I do not know. Australia does not need additional cost and the Government should walk away from the proposal right now before this turns into the greatest nightmare it could possibly imagine. This proposal was considered at length and in detail by an all-party joint parliamentary committee, the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, of which I was a member. The Government is very fond of saying that the honourable member for Richmond once supported ID cards. That is true; I did. But unlike many members in this House I spent about four months of my life learning about ID cards, learning about the Government's proposal, learning how flexible the costing is-it moves about $300m overnight-learning about what happened overseas when ID cards were introduced and learning about the consequences of ID cards. As a result of that I have changed my mind. I have no personal embarrassment about saying that; it is more than anybody else around here can say. The stooges of the right wing Labor Caucus, despite the overwhelming evidence saying ID cards will not work, were under the thumb of the machine and had to bring down a minority report saying they wanted an ID card. It is a wonder they have the nerve to show their faces in this Parliament. It is a wonder they have the nerve to go back to their constituents and say `I am here to represent you', because they do not; they represent the right wing machine of the ALP. Of all the members on that Committee, a majority of representatives, five, from every party in this Parliament said: `The ID card proposal of the Government will not work, there is a cheaper and better way to do it and we recommended against it'. After more than four months of work and hearing witnesses from all around the world and after thousands of pages of evidence, the majority of the Committee from all parties-the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia and the Australian Democrats-recommended against it. The majority of the Committee said: `No, there is a cheaper and better way'. The Department of Social Security says that less than one per cent of social security fraud is related to false identity. The Australian Taxation Office admits that it has not spent the money that is available to it at present to catch tax cheats. The Government admits that the ID card will not do anything about the cash economy. And we have this ID card legislation before the House again today. It is ineffective legislation. It will not work. It is here for one reason and one reason only-to give the Government a political excuse for a double dissolution because it is terrified of the consequences of going to the people and fighting a campaign on its economic record, which is a disaster. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(5.36) —In this contribution on the Australia Card Bill I was tempted to repeat the speech I made when the Bill was first introduced last November. The legislation is the same and my support for it is as strong as, indeed stronger than, it was then. I listened with interest to the speech by the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), who I notice is now leaving the chamber having delivered his speech. My colleagues who were on the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card tell me that the honourable member did not attend many of the meetings, and at those that he did attend he arrived late, left early or went to sleep during the hearing. So much for his comments on what that Committee decided. No doubt the Opposition will again bring out all the scare stories. We have already heard a few from the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) and the honourable member for Richmond. They raised the threat to civil liberties-`Big Brother is watching you'-but, as I have said time and time again, countries with civil liberties that we in Australia can only envy have a system of national identification. The unfortunate fact, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that there are tax cheats in the community, and I need not tell you how most of them vote. Mr Fitzgibbon —All on that side. Mr HOLLIS —I said that I need not say how they vote. Unfortunately, there is also welfare fraud. But to listen to some honourable members opposite one would think that the day the Hawke Labor Government came to power the fraud in the welfare system started. Let us face it: We inherited the system. What a system it was. We have now been in government for four years. We have been working to eliminate this fraud. What did those who sit opposite and who now preach to us about welfare fraud do about welfare fraud when they sat on the treasury bench? Why did they leave the whole system in such a mess for us? Since the Hawke Labor Government was elected the Opposition has been running around the country accusing the Government of being soft on social security fraud. Members of the Opposition have never been able to produce any figures. Their examples are usually very suspect, but this does not stop them. They still run around the country with all these scare stories. If one wants an indication of some of the scare stories, I refer to the background information circulated to Opposition members by the honourable member for Richmond. I know that most honourable members on my side have it, so I will not go through it. It contains three pages of scare tactics to use in this debate to frighten pensioners and others. The honourable member for Richmond used four of them and I think the honourable member for Barker used two. I will take a tally this evening and I know that by the end of the night all of them to the end of page 3 will have been used. I will seek leave to make a personal explanation to give the score later this evening. In the four years I have been in this place I have never seen more disgraceful misrepresentation of the facts. What does the honourable member for Richmond do about welfare fraud? How often do we hear him asking a question in this chamber about it? We do not hear him. What does he do? He drives the editors of country newspapers mad by writing letters to them all the time. That is the only contribution he can make to these debates. Let us look at some of the things that both he and the honourable member for Barker have said this afternoon. One of the things they both commented on was field officers and the powers of field officers. One simple thing which they both omitted to mention-it is not mentioned in the document, either-is that the number of field officers has been increased by nearly 200 since this Government came to power. Now that this Government has attempted to control fraud and to bring integrity into the social security system, we have the unbelievable hypocrisy of this Opposition running around the country opposing the Australia Card. It did the very same thing with the assets test and the Human Rights Commission legislation. It is simply descending into the politics of fear. It is the same in regard to the information which it says will have to be contained on the Australia Card. More information is contained on one's drivers licence and credit cards. Unlike the Australia Card, it is compulsory for every person in Australia who drives a car to carry a drivers licence. It is the same when the Opposition talks about when one will have to produce the ID card. The times when one will have to produce the ID card under this legislation are the same times as one now has to produce proof of one's identity. Today sometimes one has to prove one's identity. We are not introducing a whole new category, as some Opposition members would have people believe. The Australian people-I always give credit for the good sense of the average Australian-will see through the activities of this Opposition. Day by day the Australian people are seeing through the activities of this discredited Opposition. When the Opposition was in government it let fraud become the growth industry of the social security system. But the Hawke Government has said that enough is enough and has attempted to eliminate this fraud. Who can disagree with editorial writer after editorial writer and commentator after commentator who have accused the Opposition of opportunism of the worst possible kind on this issue? The Opposition knows in its heart that it wants to stop fraud. If it wants to stop fraud, it should support the Australia Card Bill and the Australia Card program. Opposition members know that the Australia Card program is the strongest possible weapon against tax evasion and welfare fraud. I have here no fewer than 10 pages of quotations from senior Opposition members, including the honourable member for Richmond, supporting the Australia Card. In a media release of 8 June 1985 the honourable member for Richmond said: `The introduction of a national identification system using ID cards offers benefits to the Australian people which outweigh any civil liberty considerations'. What has made the honourable member change his mind? I suggest that it might be political opportunism. I also ask: Whatever has the Opposition's tactics committee been up to? I suppose that it has been embroiled in yet another factional fight. This is a faction-ridden Opposition. The overwhelming majority of Australians support the introduction of the Australia Card. Survey after survey shows that the overwhelming majority of Australians support the introduction of the card with a photograph. We heard the honourable member for Richmond tell us about his Damascus road-type conversion. Quite a few Opposition members must have been on that road-with or without a car phone. We know that the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), was on that road, and so was the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). My good friend the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) was also on that road to Damascus. Two years ago the honourable member for Gilmore was on every road in my electorate of Throsby-as well as all the roads of Gilmore. He kept challenging me to state where I stood on the Australia Card because he thought there might have been a bit of dispute on this side. I stated where I stood. I said that I supported the card with a photograph. Interestingly, so did the honourable member for Gilmore. We were in agreement. In the Southern Highland News, the Highlands Post and all the other newspapers there we were both saying the same thing. But the honourable member for Gilmore got on that crowded road to Damascus, along with the honourable member for Richmond and the honourable member for Dawson. A whole lot of National Party members were there. Now they come in here and oppose the introduction of the Australia Card, but they know in their heart of hearts that if they were really serious about doing something about welfare fraud they would support this legislation. To give an indication of the hypocrisy of the other side, I point out that members who, like me, were in this chamber last Friday afternoon during the adjournment debate would have heard the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) make a disgraceful speech about welfare. He said that he wanted everyone to ring up and dob in a dole bludger. Mr Robert Brown —He did indeed. Mr HOLLIS —I believe that the honourable member for Charlton has the Hansard with him. What is the page? Mr Robert Brown —Page 1265. Mr HOLLIS —On page 1265 of last Friday's Hansard report one can find what the honourable member for Fisher said about dobbing in a dole bludger. If the honourable member for Fisher were serious about stopping welfare fraud, he would come into the chamber this evening and speak in support of this legislation and, when the vote is taken, he would cross from his seat to this side of the chamber and vote with honourable members on this side. Dr Charlesworth —He would slip across. Mr HOLLIS —He would slip across, as they say. The Australia Card will be used as a mechanism to cut down on social security fraud. We on this side of the chamber are serious about cutting the crooks out of the social security system. The Australia Card will be the key component in our scrutinisation strategy. The Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the honourable member for Richmond are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to find reasons to oppose the introduction of the Australia Card. They have been very busy-we will hear more of it this evening-misrepresenting the facts. The Leader of the Opposition recently made a meaningless statement when he said: The Government has admitted that there would be no net gain from the introduction of the card in the welfare area. The fact is that we cannot estimate fully the benefit of the Australia Card because we cannot estimate the extent of social security fraud. It would be like trying to estimate the number of speeding motorists who are not caught. Editorial writers in the newspapers have seen through this Opposition. They have exposed the Opposition's position as crude opportunism and have asked the question which we are all asking: What will the Opposition do about tax cheats? We want to know what the Opposition will do. I will tell honourable members what it will do. It will do exactly what it did for the seven years it occupied the treasury bench; it will do absolutely nothing. The honourable member for Fisher, who is now in the chamber, wants us all to dob in a dole cheat. But in terms of attacking welfare fraud the Opposition will do absolutely nothing, as it did during the seven years it was in office. If the Opposition does intend to do something, why is it so determined to block measures designed to crack down on social security fraud? The Opposition is wasting everyone's time on this issue because it has failed to come up with any sensible policies. The Opposition has this marvellous eight-point plan to attack social security fraud and tax evasion. Every point it has put out in the eight-point plan is wrong, shear lunacy or action already taken by this Government. For instance, the plan states that we have eliminated the work test. That is simply not true. It states that we have not enforced Commonwealth Employment Service registration. Wrong again! The plan also states that we have done away with the personsal lodgment of 19B forms, when it applies only in approved circumstances for the over 55-age group, and that that group will have to lodge its forms personally every 12 weeks. The plan promises to enforce stringent identity procedures. We are introducing the Australia Card. The Opposition states that it will make unemployed people work for the dole-or be dobbed in by the honourable member for Fisher. On that point the Opposition has two choices: It can come up with an extra $700m to pay for its scheme-this would be another blow-out for the Opposition's deficit-or it can pull 550,000 jobs out of the hat. The plan is no more than empty rhetoric, a clear sign that the Opposition is devoid of policies. Honourable members opposite who continue to oppose the Australia Card-a measure which demonstrably will reduce the incidence of tax fraud and social security fraud in this country-might care to explain their actions to their constituents. Opposition members come into this chamber day after day and talk about reducing the deficit. At the same time, they do not have the backbone to support any major reform of our taxation system. The electors of Throsby have had enough of taxation cheats and social security frauds. Mr Brumby —Hear, hear! Mr Robert Brown —Hear, hear! Mr HOLLIS —So have the electors of Bendigo and the electors of Charlton. Mr Staples —And Jagajaga. Mr HOLLIS —So have the electors of Jagajaga. They support the Government measures. The Opposition has a huge credibility gap. I suggest that those Opposition members who oppose the Australia Card do so at their electoral peril. The Opposition is cynically distorting the language of general civil libertarians. It is claiming that it is a citizen's basic right to be able to defraud the community either through not paying his or her fair share of tax or through cheating the social security system. The Australian people have had enough of this sham, humbug and hypocrisy by the Opposition and will tell the Opposition so at the next election, whenever that might be. Without wishing to fuel any speculation, I would be delighted to fight an election on this issue. I wonder how many Opposition members could say the same thing. For instance, I wonder whether the honourable member for Gilmore can. The indications I have received from the southern highlands area of my electorate are that he is out of step with his branches on this issue. They remember his comments two years ago in the Highlands Post and Southern Highland News supporting the Bill-but now he opposes it. But I suppose that the honourable member for Gilmore, like other National Party members, will have to see what Joh thinks of the Bill-or is it Sir Robert Sparkes who they all have to ring? According to the media, it is Sir Robert Sparkes who now dictates how the Nationals will vote. The Australian people will see through the sham of this faction-ridden Opposition-the wets and dries of the Liberal Party of Australia, the Howard supporters, the Andrew supporters, the Joh Nationals and the Sinclair Nationals. The Australian people regard them as an irrelevance. Mr Robert Brown —A rabble. Mr HOLLIS —They are a rabble, as the honourable member for Charlton says. Their opposition to this legislation, their scare tactics, are irrelevant. The Australian people have their measure. The Australian people know that, just as the Opposition has no leadership, nor does it have any policy to combat welfare fraud. The Australian people will show the Opposition what they think of it at the next election. The Australia Card program will play a significant role in this Government's fight against tax avoidance and evasion and social welfare fraud. It will help to ensure that every Australian pays his fair share of tax while ensuring that benefits from the welfare system go properly to those in need-to the needy, not to the greedy whom that crowd opposite supports. By helping to restore fairness and equity to the Australian taxation system and to the social welfare system, we will help to restore public confidence in the integrity of these systems. The Australia Card is essential to the achievement of that integrity. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(5.54) —What we have just heard from the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) is fairly typical of the Australian Labor Party's approach to the Australia Card Bill 1986 [No. 2]. We have said before that it has run a campaign of distortion, a campaign of the big lie. Let me now take up something that the honourable member for Throsby said which demonstrates how right that is. He said that during the seven years of the Fraser Government absolutely nothing was done about tax avoidance. The truth is, as everybody here knows, that the major anti-avoidance measures put into place by the Fraser Government have been the major anti-avoidances measures, and that not one single anti-avoidance measure has been proposed by this Government. Why? The reason is perfectly clear. No anti-avoidance measures of a general nature have been proposed by the Hawke Government for the very good reason that none were required. The honourable member was simply parrotting the approach that the Government has taken, that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has taken and that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) has taken. It has been the campaign of disinformation-the campaign of the big lie. Let me remind honourable members of a few elements of that campaign. First of all, there is the assertion, repeated again and again, that the Opposition is in league with the tax evasion industry-that, for reasons that cannot be explained coherently or logically and which no-one attempts to explain, we would ally ourselves with a small proportion of the community which is engaged in tax evasion. Why would we do that? For what principle? For what possible electoral benefit? These things are never sought to be explained. Conveniently, no attempt is ever made to answer the very simple question: Why do we find ourselves in such good company. We oppose this Bill for a number of reasons. One of the reasons, and a fundamental reason, that we oppose this Bill is that it constitutes the grossest invasion of the privacy of Australians and the most dangerous invasion of privacy of Australians that we have ever seen in peace time. Let me list again for this House the names of some of those individuals and organisations which oppose the Bill: Mr Justice Kirby-is he a friend of the tax evaders? Mr Frank Costigan QC-is he a friend of the tax evaders? Professor Richard Harding, formerly Director of the Australian Institute of Criminology-is he a friend of the tax evaders? The list also includes: Professor Geoffrey de Q. Walker of Queensland University law school; Mr Roger Clarke, Australian National University; Professor Ron Johnson, Wollongong University; the Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission; the New South Wales Council of Social Service; the Federal Council of the Liberal Party-- Government members-Ha, ha, ha! Mr SPENDER —From the other side there was a bray of unintelligent laughter. But what about this one-the legal and constitutional affairs policy committee of the Australian Labor Party. Have government members heard of the members of that Committee? Are they a gang of rogues? Are they on the side of the tax evaders? I will list a few more: The Society of Labor Lawyers; the Western Australian Young Liberals; a number of legal aid centres; the Western Australian Young Labor Association; the Australian Council for Civil Liberties; the International Commission of Jurists; the Social Responsibilities Commission of the Anglican Diocese of Perth; the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board. To those can be added: The Confederation of Australian Industry; the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia; the Real Estate Institute of Australia; the New South Wales Council of Australian Small Business Association Ltd; the Australian Associated Stock Exchanges; the Victorian Chamber of Commerce; and the South Australian Chamber of Commerce. All of those persons and organisations oppose this Bill. None of them are friends or supporters of tax evaders. They oppose the Bill for reasons of principle and because they believe that this Bill is fundamentally wrong. I doubt that the Minister or anyone else would have the courage, the temerity or the stupidity to say that those people are friends of tax evaders and part of the rip-off industry. From the beginning of this debate we have had the campaign of the big lie. The big lie is very simply that we are on the side of the crooks and the Government is on the side of the angels, and that we are the only people on the side of the crooks. Is it not extraordinary that those people and those organisations line up with us and that we find ourselves in such astonishingly good company if we are, as the Government says, on the side of the tax evaders? Next, one would expect in a debate like this that the Government would want people to have the fullest possible information on the issue. But what do we find? We find that the papers and the views on the Australia Card of the Business Regulation Review Unit, a unit established by this Government for the purpose of reducing unnecessary regulation, will not be before us. I have not seen its views. I know no more than has been reported. But these matters will not be before us. Would it not be very much better for this House and for the people to know exactly what the Business Regulation Review Unit thought about this proposal and to know the reasons why it apparently recommended against it. I should think we would learn a lot about its views on the burden to industry and whether the proposal will work. But when will we get this information? On 21 April, by which time one would expect that debate on this Bill will be entirely over. Is that just coincidental? Of course it is not; it is deliberate. The reason is clear to anyone-the Government is trying to avoid providing this information to the Opposition because it will be damaging to its case. The Minister for Health, in his second reading speech, went to very great lengths to express his Government's views about the identity card Bill and to attack the Opposition. We all know that a second reading speech is very carefully constructed. It is not something which is made up lightly or casually. It is prepared deliberately and for the purpose of stating the Government's views about the legislation honestly and without any attempt to misrepresent. But what do we find? Let me just give an example of a deliberate misrepresentation of the effect of this Bill. Page 14 of the second reading speech circulated by the Minister referred to flights of imagination that he claimed had been the hallmark of the Opposition's contribution to this debate, and he went on to say this about the right to see identity cards: The fact is that any person, be it a police officer or a Commonwealth public servant, who asks- I stress the word `asks'- for a card for a reason not specified in the Bill would be committing an offence and could be subject to a maximum penalty of $5,000 and/or a prison term of two years. This would have been considered most carefully by the Minister, his advisers and by the Department, and anyone reading that would say that that is an iron clad guarantee. But what does the legislation say? It does not say that at all. The legislation, in clause 167, says this: Except as authorised by this Act, a person shall not require another person to produce a card. Penalty: $5,000 or imprisonment for two years, or both. The Minister says `ask' and the Bill says `require'. They are two quite different words, two different concepts, having two quite different meanings, as any parliamentarian would know and as any lawyer certainly does know. So there we have an example of what we might say is a half truth at best, and certainly a deliberate misrepresentation of what this Bill provides. Let me now go on to some of the other things which have been said here in support of this legislation. A cornerstone of the Government's case is, as the Minister says: The Bill was defeated in the face of overwhelming evidence that the Australia Card program was the single most effective weapon available to Government to combat tax evasion and welfare fraud. On the basis of that statement, if people did not know what the facts were they would say how could anyone possibly oppose this Bill-leaving aside the questions and concerns about individual liberties, here is a case of overwhelming evidence. Is that so? What do we have? We have again an elaborately constructed facade of certainty which is presented to the Parliament and to the people. We have costs and benefits and myths of certainty. What are the costs? We are told that over 10 years this Government is able to compute the costs so carefully that it can arrive at a figure of $759m. The Government can arrive at that figure for an entirely novel and unique procedure that will be used to identify some 15 million Australians and it can do so in such a precise manner and put up such a precise costing. Does any one believe that? How could anyone believe that any government or business organisation confronted with something which was absolutely new would be able to say that it has costed this out and that it will come to a very precise figure over 10 years of $759m? What are some of the costs which go into it? Let me just take two instances. Advertising and information costs over 10 years will amount to $14.9m. What a nice precise figure, and who could possibly believe it? As was the last figure, the Health Insurance Commission submission of February 1986 says that we will have a figure of $1.95 for 38.5 million cards that will be issued over 10 years. Who could possible believe that spurious nonsense? Who believes that these estimates are anything but guesstimates which have been pulled together for the purpose of providing justification for this Bill to come down to a cost benefit analysis and start off with a nice precise beguiling figure of $759m. Let us go now to the savings. The Government says that there will be savings of tax revenue of $4.1 billion over 10 years and a saving for the Health Insurance Commission, the Department of Social Security and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of $1.4 billion. If we take the net figure and deduct the cost from those figures, what do we get? We get net savings of $4.7 billion over 10 years-another nice precise figure. What are some of the items of costs? What will computer hardware cost? What will computer software cost? What sort of computers will be used? Will they be IBM computers? Where will they come from, in what currency will they be paid for, what will be the rate of exchange when they are paid for and over 10 years how many will be required to be replaced? We know that there will be upgrading or the establishment of over 300 Medicare premises. We know that on the estimates of the Government there will be 2,150 public servants involved. How much time will be spent in processing every adult in this country? Who could possibly make an estimate of the time that will be required to process not just every adult in this country but almost everyone in this country of 15 million people? Where does this kind of an estimate come from? It comes out of the air, along with the rest of the estimates which have been put to this Parliament. Of course, the estimate is very precisely expressed. Moving on to revenue, tax revenue is $4.1 billion. This, of course, has to be in addition to revenue which is discovered through the ordinary procedures of the Taxation Office because we have to ask ourselves quite separately how much additional revenue we will get out of this card. We do not know anything about the size of the black economy. There are an awful lot of guesses about it. In the report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card the Australian Tax Office referred to the black economy as the aggregate of activity that escapes economic measurement and tax assessment. Of course that is right, but what does it mean? Nobody knows how large it is. Do we know how it operates? Does the Tax Office know how it operates or how the ID card may affect the operations of that economy? Does the Tax Office know how the black economy will react? I will get no answer to it, but I ask this question: If one does not know the size of the black economy, how it operates and the tax rates of the people involved in it, how can one possibly come to an estimate of revenue gains? Mr Robert Brown —Because we know the result. Mr SPENDER —Because, it is said, the Government knows the result of it. One thing which we do know about the black economy, about the cash economy, is that people are in it because it benefits them. What does that mean? It means that they trade in cash because it is a benefit to the person who receives the cash and it is a benefit to the person who gives the cash. Do we think that overnight these people will be turned into people who are going to abide by the system, that everything is suddenly going to be channelled into bank accounts? Of course it is not. It is absurd to put up these precise figures; it is absurd to make assumptions about an economy that we do not even know anything about and it is absurd to think that we are going to turn around the way in which people in the black economy, the cash economy, conduct their business. Let us move on to social security. We are told that the estimated savings in the Department of Social Security, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and in the Health Insurance Commission are $1.4m. What do we have? We have a set of elaborate figures. Let me just give honourable members an examble from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The Department came to the Joint Select Committee with some rather elaborate projections of the effect on illegal migrants working in this country. But on examination these projections proved to be totally groundless. How were they described in evidence? They were described in evidence, amongst other ways, by Mr McKinnon, the Secretary to the Department, as a guesstimate. He stated: But as I say, we would describe it as only a guesstimate, which gives us a total of something like 60,000 jobs which are occupied by people illegally. He went on to say: It is a departmental study. It was done about four or five years ago. If we did the same study now we probably could not find the same crystal ball . . . The crystal ball was lost in the Department somewhere. On the basis of that kind of evidence, we in this House are asked to accept these figures, to accept the Government's case, and to say: `Yes, this is a well-founded case. It is one that we should all agree to'. It is not. We know two things: We know that the costs are going to be great-$759m. That is only an opening figure. We know that the benefits are going to be speculative and we also know that this card will constitute the grossest and most far-reaching intrusion into the privacy of individuals in this country that we have seen in peacetime. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(6.13) —It is only a matter of months ago, as I recall, that I was in this House speaking on this legislation. It went from here to the Senate where it was rejected by the Opposition parties. The Australia Card debate is now back in the House of Representatives. I have no doubt that later this evening or tomorrow this legislation will again be overwhelmingly endorsed by members in this place and it will again be put to members of the Senate. What we have heard tonight from the contribution of Opposition members is in every way and in every sense a desperate, last ditch effort to try to string together, to tack together, an Opposition, a coalition, which is rapidly disintegrating and falling apart. But particularly in terms of this legislation, what we have heard tonight is that same desperate effort to hold together the Liberal and National parties from the four senators who are likely to cross the floor in the Senate and undo this debate here today. Those opposite know that there are enormous pressures in the Liberal Party and in the National Party for their own senators to cross the floor and support this legislation in the Senate. Those opposite are being forced to reprimand them, bully them and hold them back into place so that they cannot vote the way their consciences would dictate. I find it amusing to hear Opposition speaker after Opposition speaker rise and oppose the Australia Card. It is not just the overwhelming mass of ordinary people, the 65,000 electors in my electorate from all walks of live who strongly support this card; Liberal Party branches and National Party branches are writing to my electorate office supporting this card and seeking information about it. Mr McGauran —Name them. Mr Donald Cameron —Show us the letter. Mr BRUMBY —I am not bluffing and I will show honourable members the letter. I will bring it in here. Mr McGauran —You are misleading the House. Mr BRUMBY —I am not bluffing; I am not misleading the House. That is why I find this debate amusing because I know-I was on the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card-from my dealings with Opposition members the very difficult decision, I warrant, that the Opposition parties had to make about whether to support or oppose the Australia Card. But they decided to oppose the Australia Card. That is why I say that it will be passed today in this House. We will put it to the Senate again and we will test the strength and commitment of the Opposition parties about their position on the Australia Card. The previous speaker, the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), has been an outspoken critic of the Australia Card. He read to this House a list of opponents of the Australia Card. It was possible, during his 20-minute contribution, for him to read that list in a matter of minutes. Mr Robert Brown —It was a complete list. Mr BRUMBY —It was a complete list of everyone who opposes the Australia Card. I would not dare suggest tonight that I should read into the Hansard a list of all those people who support the Australia Card. I could not do it in 20 minutes, I could not do it in 40 minutes and I could not do it in days or weeks. I would need the support of all my colleagues here constantly reading lists of names into Hansard because millions of Australians support the Australia Card. They support the Australia Card because most Australians have eminently good sense and a sense of what is fair. They know that there is still avoidance unfortunately in the tax system in this country and they know that a small number of people continue to defraud the social security system. They do not want draconian, repressive measures, but they do want a fair go and they do want to ensure that a simple, cost-effective mechanism, administered by government is available to ensure that tax avoidance is reduced and that the people who genuinely need social security are the ones who obtain it. That is all we are saying with this Australia Card. This debate has been going for the best part of two years. I know of no other government policy which has been so debated in political parties, in the community or in this Parliament. I challenge people to come up with pieces of legislation that have had more debate either in this House or in the Senate, or more discussion in party rooms or in committees. This legislation and this proposal have been well discussed. The Australian people have a good understanding of the arguments for and against this legislation and, as I say, they support it overwhelmingly. I am reminded from the last speech I made in this place on the Australia Card that the estimated net benefits of this card-they are estimates which have been scrutinised by the Joint Select Committee, the Department of Finance, the Health Insurance Commission and so on-are around $870m a year. I just point out for Australians who at the moment would like a bigger tax cut than they are going to get on 1 July that that sort of saving enables this Government over the next 10 years to make tax cuts in the order of $5 per fortnight. I point that out because these are not insignificant savings that we are talking about in this legislation. I refer to the Joint Select Committee, which had representatives of the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Australian Democrats. It was a joint select committee-all parties were represented. I will quote from page 27 of the report written by all members of that Committee unanimously: The ATO was of the view that no other single action could be taken that would produce revenue gains of the magnitude estimated as a result of the proposed Australia Card Program. On page 29 of the report it is stated: The Committee is unanimous in its view that tax evasion must be tackled as vigorously as possible. . . . Overall, the Committee accepts the estimates made by the Australian Taxation Office and notes that they may be a substantial underestimation of final benefits obtainable under the proposal. That paragraph was written by all eight members of that Committee. It was not written just by Labor Party members, but by Liberal Party, National Party and Democrat members. They say that the annual benefits of about $700m are a substantial underestimation of the net benefits that we are likely to see from the proposal. The Committee was conservative in its view. We did not want to be in a position of being accused, either in this place or in the public forum, of overstating figures. So there it is in the report; we have underestimated the figures. Other claims have been made in this debate about fixing up the tax system. The Opposition has claimed that we do not need an Australia Card and that the problems are all in the Tax Office. It has referred to a report by the Standing Committee on Expenditure entitled `A Taxing Problem', saying that that proved that the Tax Office was sloppy in its administration and that, if it were fixed up, everything would be all right. Let me read out from page 28 of the Committee's report so we can see what it said about the Tax Office. It said that there had been tax leakage through the Taxation Office-primarily, I might say-during the Fraser Government years. It also stated: This non-realisation of taxation revenues has arisen because of two fundamental problems within the information reporting system- that is, of the Australian Taxation Office- lack of information, and inadequate matching capabilities. Opposition members come in here, quote it, and say gleefully: `Gee, that's got me off the hook; I have got away from the Australia Card debate. I have said that the problems are in the Tax Office. The problem, John Howard and Andrew Peacock, will all go away, and everything will be all right'. It will not be all right; we have to do some serious thinking. The report which the Opposition keeps quoting says that the problem in the Tax Office is due to the lack of information and inadequate matching capabilities. For goodness sake! The Opposition's own people on the Select Committee know very well that what the Australia Card will enable is far better information-that is what it is all about-and better matching capabilities. That is why the revenue gains in the Tax Office are so obvious. In our report, they were understated. I turn now to the question of social security fraud. In our report, and in the Government's assessment, that will contribute only a modest proportion of the total savings in this program. In fact, the Committee was so careful with its assessment that it did not make any allowance for savings from social security. The Committee thought that there would be considerable savings, but it was not prepared to put a figure on them because it did not ever want to be in a position of saying that it was trying to hoodwink the Australian people or this Parliament. There will be some savings from the use of the Australia Card in the crack-down on social security fraud. The Department of Social Security said, when it appeared before our Committee, that it was not able to estimate the level of fraud due to false identities within the social security system. One does not have to be a genius with an IQ of more than 150 or thereabouts to know why it cannot identify all the false identities. The Committee said in its report: While the Committee accepts the Department's difficulty in establishing the amount of social security fraud due to false identities, it believes that there is still significant fraud within this area. The Committee is concerned about the cases involving individuals with large numbers of false identities which come to light from time to time. Also in the unanimous part of the report, the Committee said: During the inquiry the Committee became aware of a number of unsourced estimates of social security fraud ranging between $200-$500 million per annum. I make those points because the types of proposals which the Opposition is putting up to remedy the problem simply will not tackle the problem of mistaken identity. The Department is simply unable to estimate that. On the basis of the evidence put to our Committee from other sources we say, and we argue, that the potential benefit from the area is somewhat larger than we have allowed for. It is certainly a benefit which is there if the Australia Card is introduced. The Australia Card is essential-it needs repeating again and again-to rectify problems of mistaken identity. I turn to the contribution of the honourable member for North Sydney and his combination of civil libertarian and economic arguments some moments ago against the Australia Card. I also refer to an article which appeared recently in the Age newspaper by Mr Ron Castan, who is the President of the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties. It has been Mr Castan and the honourable member for North Sydney who have spearheaded, in many ways, the campaign against the Australia Card. In the article, Mr Castan does not say a thing about civil liberties; he tries to tackle the economic debate. I hope that the Age gives the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) a courtesy of responding to it, because it is a very erroneous article. Mr Castan said that one can discount on the Australia Card the $1,292m which was to have been saved by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs because it will no longer have access to the Australia Card Register. That claim is totally fallacious; it is simply wrong. The savings in that area will come from people no longer able to claim illegally the unemployment benefit. Many illegal immigrants in Australia at the moment claim the unemployment benefit, having got through the system. They will not be able to do so when the Australia Card is introduced. The savings will also come from jobs which are being taken, wrongly, by illegal immigrants in Australia. The savings will come from other social security savings and from tax savings from illegal immigrants who are working and not paying tax. To say that, because the Department does not have computer access and, therefore, the savings do not exist, completely misundertands the basis on which the savings were calculated. Mr Castan went on to cite a figure about the costs of the Australia Card. He picked a figure of over $1 billion a year over 10 years. Mr Castan has had to go back a long way to try to find that figure. That was a very early draft figure which has been modified many times. The accepted costing figure now by the Department, the Government and the Joint Select Committee is around $700m. So he is about $300m out there. Mr Castan went on to talk about the Taxation Office. He said: The Taxation Office is left as the only area in which savings are claimed and which, on the Government's own figures, might conceivably yield a worthwhile net benefit. I think that I have covered the tax savings area pretty well. The Government, the Tax Office, a number of business organisations and the Joint Select Committee have said that the tax savings of around $800m-plus a year are conservative in the extreme. In fact, officers from the Tax Office said that that figure could well be half of what the figure is in reality. However, we were not prepared to say that because we wanted to produce a watertight, conservative document. That is what we have done. We are looking at $800m a year. Mr Castan's only comment is that it might conceivably yield a worthwhile net benefit. Goodness gracious, there are many people in a community who could do with a tax cut of $5 a week; there are many people who could do with a pension increase; and there are many people who are not on Mr Castan's income who appreciate the value of $833m per annum at a time when this Government is looking for money to reduce its expenditure because we have had a collapse in our terms of trade. The last point I want to make is to reject, again, another of the many erroneous claims made by the honourable member for North Sydney. He claimed in his opening remarks that the Australia Card lacked support; in fact, it was actively opposed by business organisations in Australia. He went so far as to say that the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia opposed the Australia Card. COSBOA has twice indicated its support in principle for the Australia Card and it has done so as recently as this month. More importantly, on 9 March the Business Council of Australia announced that it supports the introduction of the Australia card. It is not as if there is a whole plethora of business organisations out there in electorates opposing the Australia Card. The Business Council of Australia supports the Card. COSBOA wrote to us as recently as March and indicated that it maintained its support in principle for the Card. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(8.00) —I believe that the re-introduction of the Australia Card Bill 1986 into this Parliament is farcical because all the Government is seeking to do is set in place a mechanism whereby, if it wishes, it can bring about a double dissolution. The legislation was soundly defeated in this place as a result of its being blocked in the Senate last year. As one of the honourable members of the Government said previously, there probably has been no legislation in recent years that has been discussed as much as the Australia Card Bill, yet the Government is bringing it back and trotting it out again simply as a political ploy. It was on 5 February-I learnt about it on 6 February-that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) announced that the Government intended to re-introduce the Australia Card Bill with amendments. I will quote his words at the time. The amendments were to demonstrate `its willingness to accept any reasonable suggestions to improve the ID card legislation'. That announcement made my birthday, as I read about it, on 6 February. It was an admission that what the Opposition had fought against so hard and for so long was a correct fight. At that time the Government was going to change the legislation that it so strongly stated in this place previously was all correct. The legislation failed because the Australian Democrats joined the Liberal and National party senators in the Senate to vote against it. The Democrats do not vote with the Liberals and Nationals lightly, but so seriously do they regard the implications and ramifications that they voted against it; they put their votes where they put their mouths. Suddenly, there was a stroke of magic-a bit of turmoil in the Opposition parties, a Prime Minister who sniffed that maybe this would present him with an opportunity to go to the people, a Prime Minister who wants to call the tune in terms of when the election will be called. Suddenly, the amendments of the Minister for Health are all off and the legislation has been re-introduced in exactly the same state as it was when it was introduced into the Parliament last year and defeated in the Senate. It was an exercise of sheer cynicism and very much in line with a promise of no early election. I ask honourable members to remember that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) told the people in 1983 that there would be no early election. That was one of the things on which he used to win the support of the people. Yet in 1984 there was another election-about 18 months later. We have heard him state in the last year or so `no early election', but suddenly because he thinks that it might be to the Government's advantage to have an early election we have a re-introduction of the Australia Card. Mr Porter —He is in for a shock when he sees the polls tomorrow. Mr DONALD CAMERON —I have heard that he will be in for a shock. The polls are showing that the Opposition parties have come up considerably. The Minister for Health, who is in the chamber, fell like a wet rag to the floor when the Prime Minister overrode him and said that the the Government would be going ahead with the legislation exactly as it stood. It is 201 years since the first identification card system in the world was introduced. It was introduced just prior to the French Revolution after which much of it was abandoned. But the French still had not learnt completely. It was only during the Second World War, during the occupation by Nazi Germany, that the French really learnt, to their sorrow, what could be done with an ID card system. After the Second World War the French abandoned the compulsory nature of that scheme and allowed it to continue on a voluntary basis. The Dutch also suffered as a result of the Second World War and have suffered as a result of an in-place ID system. They abandoned it immediately at the end of the Second World War. They learnt the hard way too, what can be done when an identification system is in place. Here we are in Australia, a nation of just 16 million about to be numbered from one to 16 million by a government party that I used to believe was more civil liberty conscious than even my own Party. How things change. With the taping and publication of the Kennett-Peacock private telephone conversation this week, we note how people justify any action when the question of the rights to liberty and privacy are wiped from the agenda of discussion as an unimportant consideration. Lest anyone in this place thinks that my comments are tailored to suit an expedient approach to the events of recent days, I repeat what I said in this place when this very Bill was before this Parliament on 13 November 1986. I said: My attitude on privacy has been consistent for almost two decades. I came in here exactly 20 years ago and in the late 1960s and early 1970s I fought for the introduction of safeguards to ensure that telephone tapping was very tightly regulated. Indeed today, unless it is done illegally in some places, one has to go to a judge and justify why a telephone should be tapped. I have been consistent in my views on privacy. The definition- I emphasise this- of privacy is the right to control the supply of information about oneself and it is closely linked to the practice of democracy as we know it in this country. I repeat: The definition of privacy is the right to control the supply of information about oneself and it is closely linked to the practice of democracy as we know it in this country. If people in the community believe that what befalls a politician is just his or her lot and of little concern, let me warn them that they are indulging in a reckless attitude. Australian men and women have fought and died for the freedoms we enjoy and no home grown government has the right to erode those rights that have been protected with blood and the sacrifice of life. What I am saying is that I do not trust any government. They get their foot in the door, justify it on the emotional ground of seeking to scoop up the millions of tax avoiders and the thousands of social security rip-off merchants and appeal to the basic emotion of people such as the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby). The honourable member for Bendigo stood in here just before 6.30 and said: `Men and women of Australia, how would you like another $5 in your pockets each week, because that is what we will be able to give you if you grant us the right to introduce this ID card'. He is trying to buy principle with a single handful of dollars. The Australian men and women will not be bought that cheaply or easily. They will not abandon principle for a single handful of dollars. The honourable member for Bendigo insulted the intelligence of us all with that plea and presentation of his speech. Another aspect of the ID card is the growth of bureaucracy. When I came to this Parliament 20 years ago this nation had an annual budget of $6 billion-I say that in very simple, easy to understand terms-and the average wage was $60 a week. In 20 years the average wage has gone up just over seven times. When I say that, I know that there are millions of men and women who do not get the average wage. The average wage has gone up just over seven times, but government expenditure has gone from $6 billion to more than $72 billion; an increase of more than 12 times the expenditure when I came here in 1966. I am not saying for a moment that the Hawke Government is totally responsible for that increase. Dr Charlesworth —Thank God for that. Mr DONALD CAMERON —It is not, but the Whitlam Government, my Labor friend, played its role in shooting up the rate of government expenditure, so the honourable member for Perth should not sit there smiling like a Cheshire cat, having just come back from a world hockey tour. I acknowlege the fact that he is in the Parliament. We hardly ever see him here these days, as he traipses around the world playing hockey. It is nice to see that he still has a view on the ailments of this country. That expenditure has been crippling this nation. The airy-fairy group in this country get the idea that a few more public servants here and there will be for the good of fellow Australians; and so it goes on. What is being proposed with the ID card is the appointment of another 2,100 bureaucrats and the establishment or upgrading of another 300 Medicare officers so that the Government can cope with the branding system; a system that is almost like branding cattle. It will cost all that money just to set the Government's dewy-eyed idea in place. I suggest to the Minister, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and any other Labor Party member in this Parliament that the people of Australia have had a gutful of the Parliament deciding on the best way that their money can be spent. The people of Australia are demanding more than anything that the Government gets out of their pockets and leaves them alone. The Minister's Department did not even assess the cost of the ID card to industry or the private sector. The Australian Bankers Association has presented information in the past few days which says that in its industry alone there will be an initial outlay of in excess of $60m. Who will end up paying for that? Every person who has a bank account, even the kids. My kids and Government members' kids will have to carry a number. Those same people will be contributing to the cost of the Government's ID card. The Bankers Association went on to say that even when the ID card is in place it will cost another $5m in present money values just to administer on an annual basis. That is just the banking world, but what about the rest of the business world? It will have to set up a mechanism to take care of this Government's airy-fairy views on the ID card. The Government is taking the easy way out. It talks about social security fraud, which no doubt goes on. We on this side of the House do not say that it does not go on. We all know that it goes on, but the difference between the Government and the Opposition is in the way that we believe it would be best to eliminate and eradicate that fraud. In terms of tax evasion, it is no use the Government embracing the Commissioner of Taxation, Mr Boucher, and quoting him as an authority who backs the Government's views on the ID card. There is no point in the Government saying that the Tax Commissioner says that he really cannot get to grips with tax evasion until he has this system in place, because it has been shown that the Tax Commissioner does not even have the ability to utilise all the information that he is being given now-the type of information which lists the dividends and interest payments that are made to individuals. He does not even know how to check those lists against returns. The Government, instead of introducing a system which would allow that information to be matched, is about to go out and brand everyone like cattle. The honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) talked about giving everybody a dog-tag. That is a moderate approach, but I would rather liken it to the cattle brand, just so that the Government knows what everybody is doing. I come back to the point I made earlier when I referred to the definition of privacy as the right to control the supply of information about oneself. The Minister and I are different in our thinking, but I am not without respect for him. I have said that previously in this place. But I want him to know that people, including people in the Labor Party, the Australian Democrats, the National Party and the Liberal Party, have a passionate belief that the ID card is an invasion of privacy. It is the erosion of the liberty of the individual to control his or her destiny and to control the information that that person possesses about himself or herself. I ask the Minister to recognise this. Perhaps he has recognised it after all, because it was he who made the announcement that the ID card legislation would be amended. It was his Prime Minister who came in on top of him and, for cheap expedient reasons, saw it as an opportunity to get some piece of legislation knocked back twice by the Senate so that if it were opportune to do so he could break yet another promise and take this Parliament to the people of Australia. (Quorum formed) Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(8.20) —The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) gave us a diatribe and a presentation which, I suggest, if we had a parliamentary actors award, would qualify him for that award. I also suggest that he might even consider a screen test for Sons and Daughters, but I would want to check that he is in Actors Equity. We certainly saw a bit of acting just then. The honourable member ought to remember that people who follow Opposition members in debate get the chance to refute the claims they have made. It seems to me that the honourable member for Moreton has been convinced by his own propaganda. He talked about the growth in bureaucracy and said that this was a criticism of the Australia Card. In the propaganda that the Liberals and Nationals are putting out everything they propose involves increased bureaucracy-more people in the Commonwealth Employment Service, more Social Security officers, more tax officers. So we cannot really depend on what the honourable member for Moreton says. The key to the Liberal-National Party proposal in this area is the tax file number. By putting that proposal forward Opposition members are saying: `Leave it to the Tax Office'. The honourable member for Moreton said that the Australian Taxation Office is incompetent and that it cannot handle even the information before it now. Yet the Liberals and Nationals tell us that the way to handle the problem is to leave it to the Tax Office-the Tax Office that the honourable member for Moreton says cannot even do the job now. The honourable member also talked about the high and honourable position he has taken on phone tapping. When the issue of phone tapping concerning Lionel Murphy, which sent him to an early grave, was raised I do not recall the honourable member for Moreton standing up for civil liberties. He was prepared to condone that. It seems we have two different rules here. The honourable member for Moreton ought to think very carefully when he talks about this debate being farcical because it is the Liberal-National Opposition that has kept the debate going. It will probably go for a couple of days. This will not only cost the people of Australia a lost of money because of the revenue gains we are losing but also because there are some 3,000 people employed in the parliamentary system. Their wages are about $180,000 a day. So every day the Opposition prolongs this second debate-and that is what it is-on this Bill it is costing the Australian community $180,000. Yes, it is farcical but it is farcical not for the reasons given by the honourable member for Moreton; it is farcical for reasons which are quite clear and which have been demonstrated by Government members. I appreciate that it is the task of the Opposition to oppose but it is also the role and responsibility of any opposition to act responsibly, to criticise constructively and to present alternatives. But have we seen that in this debate? Of course we have not. Instead, because of some mistaken belief by Opposition members that they might gain politically, in both the Senate and the House of Representatives they have placed themselves in a position in which they are actually working to protect not only the dishonest Australians who evade and rort the taxation and welfare systems but also the illegal migrants in this country. In their campaign of opposition they have done everything to build up the fear and trauma in the community. We just heard it then from the honourable member for Moreton talking about kids carrying ID cards. Next minute we will hear about numbers on the forehead or something like that. Opposition members have resorted to blatant untruths when they have talked about the expansion of the use of the Australia Card. The people who think about this and the people who listen to this debate must appreciate that this is a blatant untruth because it is legislation that determines and specifically sets out the application of the Australia Card. It would take new legislation to expand Australia Card use. We simply have to look back at the performance of the Liberals and Nationals. I do not think the people of Australia have forgotten that the Liberal and National members voted against measures that were brought forward by the Hawke Labor Government to retrieve the hundreds of millions of dollars illegally reaped by business under the bottom of the harbour schemes. The people have not forgotten that the Liberal and National parties in power between 1975 and 1983 closed their eyes to welfare fraud. But the Hawke Labor Government acted in these areas. Last year the Hawke Labor Government acted to save this country something like $50m a year by stopping New Zealanders from coming to Australia, stepping of a boat or getting out of a plane and going straight on to welfare benefits. The Hawke Labor Government toughened up the controls concerning the application for benefits. The Hawke Government upgraded the field checks on long term welfare recipients. The Hawke Government has taken action against those who have been rorting the welfare system. It is not surprising that the Hawke Government is also now acting to further combat tax evasion, welfare fraud and the activities of illegal migrants in this country. I and other Government members believe that people of this country have a right to expect that their elected representatives will protect them, and I mean protect them, from those who are operating dishonestly within the tax and welfare systems. They have a right to expect that this Government will ensure as best it can that everybody contributes his fair share of tax. They have a right to believe that welfare benefits are paid only to those who are legally entitled to those benefits. But it appears that that is not the view of Liberal and National members because they are opposing these measures. The people of Australia also want to ensure that immigrants here are legally here and that their activities are also legal. The people of Australia also expect that in achieving these objectives of overcoming welfare and tax fraud the government of the day must do everything within its power to ensure that any identification system or Australia Card system is not abused or illegally used and that the rights of the individual relating to civil liberties and privacy are safeguarded. I have listened to this debate and other debates. When we endeavour to address the problems of tax and welfare fraud and illegal migrant activities that we have in this country different solutions will always be proposed and canvassed. It is understandable that in the first instance people will suggest that we tackle it through the tax system. I thought that at first too. I listened to some of the debates in the Government's legal committee. I think it is also understandable that when people first hear about these things without knowing the detailed proposals they could be concerned about the unfettered use of any identification card system. It is also understandable that the invasion of privacy would arise in the debate. The facts are that the invasion of privacy area has been very carefully considered and proper protections have been built into the proposed system and are in the legislation. They are not something that will be done by regulation; they are in the legislation. The use of the card is not unfettered. Instead there are rigid-I stress-tough, stringent legislative controls that carry heavy penalties for abuse and misuse of the Australia Card. They also restrict the use of the Australia Card. In contrast to the tax control propositions, the Australia Card is clearly the most cost-effective, efficient, all-embracing and suitable method of addressing the difficult tax evasion, welfare abuse and migration problems confronting our country. I believe, as other Government members do, that the Australia Card will give to Australia's overburdened tax and welfare systems a fairness that we have never known before. It will save an estimated $880m in lost revenue. This is over $2m per day. This legislation first came before the House last year. It was rejected on 10 December. This means that this nation now faces a cost or loss of $200m since this legislation was first rejected-I stress rejected-by the Liberals and Nationals. That $200m could have meant something like 6,000 new homes for Australian families, a significant increase in age pensions, thousands of loans for needy farmers and small businessmen, hundreds of extra university places, thousands of new places through Jobstart positions for young people, the upgrading of country roads and a brand new approach in so many areas of government expenditure, because there would have been more money. But instead it is revenue lost. And why? Because this Opposition, the coalition of Liberals and Nationals, thought it was on a political winner. It thought it would gain something politically by opposing the concept of the Australia Card. I have asked myself why Opposition members would do it. Surely they must have thought it through. They knew the tax problems. The honourable member for Moreton said that there are `millions of Australians rorting the tax system'. He admitted that there was welfare fraud. So, why would Opposition members do it? When one considers their gung-ho approach to phone tapping and when one realises that they have never really cared about the welfare system, why have they suddenly taken this approach? If one is to believe the talk in the corridors, it seems that the real reason the Liberals and Nationals have decided to oppose the identification system is that way back in the last part of last year they thought that if they did they might split the Australian Labor Party. They thought that there might be enough people in the Goverment, the Labor Party branches and the labour movement who would oppose the idea. But it has not worked. Instead, Government members, branch members and the people generally-the majority of Australians-have realised that if we are going to redress the situation and attack the problems the card has to be. If one listens to the talk in the corridors, many Opposition members now agree with the introduction of the Australia Card but they are caught up in their own early intrigue. I have a bit of sympathy for the honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) because he has had to try to put forward some sort of reasonable case for the Opposition. He has done a pretty poor job. He cannot explain, for instance, why, if tax evasion, welfare fraud and migrant illegalities could be stopped by his list of administrative measures-he has listed all the measures-the Liberals and Nationals did not do it when they were in government. Why did they not do it between 1975 and 1983? When Labor took over it was estimated that there were some 55,000 illegal immigrants in Australia. The New Zealand visitors I mentioned before were ripping off about $1m a week from the Australian welfare system. Hundreds of millions of dollars was being lost each year because of non-declared income. It has been left, as usual, to the Labor Government to act, not only with the introduction of legislation for the Australia Card but also with precise and tough administrative measures. This is the Government that has toughened up the application procedures for social security. It is nonsense for the honourable member for Richmond to get up and say that under Labor all one needs is a driver's licence or some sort of credit card. One needs three documents which have integrity-such as one's birth certificate and one's marriage certificate-before one gets benefits. Under Labor, recipients of unemployment benefits must physically call in to the Commonwealth Employment Service and Social Security offices to lodge their forms weekly. This was not the case under the Liberals and Nationals. Under the former Government, farmers' sons would work on the family farm but send in their forms and get the dole. That cannot happen under the Labor Government. One fronts up or one misses out. New Zealanders, as I said, cannot get off the plane and pick up welfare benefits. Now they must be in the country for six or twelve months. Field officer checks have been increased. We have seen in the media recently that hundreds of people who have been receiving welfare are now under challenge. Many have had their benefits reduced and others have had them cancelled. At the same time, some people have had their benefits increased because as we have done this work we have found that some people were missing out on the benefits that were due to them. There has also been a massive clamp-down in the administration area to bring about efficiency. This is all happening before the introduction of the Australia Card. It has already meant tens of millions of dollars being saved for the people of Australia. In the area of migration, again we have acted properly. There was the amnesty for illegals, but when the amnesty was over this Government moved against the illegals. Much to the trauma of some people, we have actually deported a number of people. On this side of the House we believe that an immigration system must have integrity. One cannot have queue jumping or people coming to this country on visitors visas and then illegally getting jobs, changing their names and drawing benefits. There has to be integrity. This Government has brought about that integrity. In the tax area, again it is the Hawke Government that has endeavoured to retrieve the money lost to the people through the bottom of the harbour schemes. Whichever test or measure one uses, it is the Hawke Labor Government that has acted with integrity, purpose and precision, and acted properly, to try to ensure that the rights of the people which I outlined before are adhered to. It is in the tax area that I think we will see the greatest gains. It is in the tax area that the people of Australia want to see an Australia Card because that is where the revenue gains are. In the tax area alone it is very conservatively estimated that the revenue gains to the people of Australia will be $724m. One can say figures quickly and it does not mean very much, but that is $150m more than this Government gave to all the local authorities-the 830 local authorities-last year. It is more than half the total money we gave to the States for roads last year. We gave the States $1,240m for roads and the revenue gain from the card will be $724m. Yet, despite the advantages and gains to local authorities, to States, to people in every capacity, the Liberal and National parties intend to close their eyes and again vote against this legislation. For the first time, and this time through the Australia Card, the Australian Taxation Office will have a highly secure and effective means of linking all sources of income, whether it comes from employment, investments, welfare payments or interest earned on bank accounts. It will be the first time the Tax Office can do the job that it should do. It is no wonder the honourable member for Moreton criticises the operation of the Taxation Office. It has been hampered and fettered. But now we are going to give the Office an instrument that will allow it to chase up the employment income, the investments and the welfare payments and link them together. This will mean an end to migrants working illegally in this country. It will mean an end to non-declared investment returns. It will mean an end to non-declared interest on bank accounts and building society deposits. It will mean an end to the income tax dodgers who have two or three jobs. It will mean an end to the unemployment benefit recipients who drive hire cars, have part time taxi licences and use false names to work in the seasonal industries, for small crop farmers and so on. It will mean an end to the rorts pulled by the spouses who falsely declare that they are separated in order to get benefits. It will mean an end to all those things. The list goes on and on. It is no wonder that the vast majority of Australians support the Australia Card. It is no wonder that public opinion has turned so hard against the Nationals and Liberals on this issue. I join the millions of honest Australians who support the Australia Card. I believe that they understand what it is all about. They realise that the card will ensure that no longer will the families, pensioners, small business proprietors and all other people out there have to subsidise the cheats within our society. They also realise that only through the Australia Card will real integrity be returned to the tax system and that only through an identification system will the links be made between investment income and benefits that are received by people and that they will be forced to be declared. I see hundreds of reasons why the Australia Card should be introduced. It is not so much for financial reasons but because we need to bring integrity back into the welfare system and the tax system. I have not heard a decent argument yet come forward from the Opposition. Its members have talked about administrative changes. We have made them. They have talked about increasing the number of field checks. We have done that. They have talked about improving the application system for benefits. We have done that. Yet it has been said by Opposition members that there is still a problem out there. Clearly, the honest thinking Australian knows the value of the Australia Card. It is about time this Opposition admitted its mistake, a mistake it made for sheer political reason, and got together with Government members to ensure that this legislation passes the Senate so that the tax, welfare and illegal migrant problems of this country can be beaten. It is time that party politics were cast aside and the good of Australia was put first. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(8.39) —It is always a bit of a problem to follow the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright). He is rather like a cyclone in search of a Pacific Island to ruin. In passing, I must say that it is rather pleasant to see the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) restored to good health and sitting at the table with a pleasant smile on his face. The honourable member for Capricornia suggested that the real reason the coalition parties-the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia-were opposing this legislation, the Australia Card Bill 1986 (No. 2), was that we wanted to foster a split in the Labor Party. Well, there are fairies at the bottom of his garden and he has proved it again tonight. He suggested that debating this issue is costing the Australian people $180,000 a day. I have never before heard it suggested that a cost should be put on the price of free speech, that there should be a cost put on the price of parliamentary democracy. He suggested that thousands of new jobs are prevented from being created and that more university places are prevented from being created because of this cost. Frankly, that is absolutely crazy. The debate on this issue boils down to a very fundamental philosophical question. That is: Are the people of Australia here to serve the Government? Are the people of Australia here to serve the state-or is the Government, the state, here to serve the people? I am certain that I speak for every member of the Opposition when I say without hesitation that the reality must be that the state is here to serve the people, not the other way round. Yet this Labor Government, this Hawke Government, this Keating Government, this socialist Government, is determined to impose its control over the people of Australia. I just want to digress for a minute or two to talk about a couple of very close friends of mine, Henk and Reina van der Iest, who live in the shire of Coffs Harbour. As honourable members may gather from their name, they were originally citizens of Holland and are of such an age that they lived through the German holocaust; they lived through the occupation of Europe. I have often heard Henk talk about his activities during the war in Holland and the fact that many of his friends and some of his family were imprisoned, tortured and killed because of identity cards. The reality is that he has forged identity cards. It is easy to do. He had the technology of his day. Of course, these days the technology is far more sophisticated. But, if the technology exists to create identity cards, it exists to forge them too. I know that this is stale pastry-something of which I often accuse the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) when he comes into this chamber and starts carrying on about the performance of the Fraser Government and going back in time-but the reality is that even in the gaols of New South Wales we have a track record of the forgery of birth certificates and driving licences. There is nothing whatsoever to stop the forgery of these identity cards. Believe me: If introduced, they will be forged. One can get false passports. Even the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford), who is sitting opposite, knows that one can get a false passport. All one has to do is provide a bit of money and they will come. I want to go on a bit further and just refer to an experience of Reina van der Iest. As I said, Henk and Reina are close friends of my wife and me. They had lunch with us only three weeks ago and Reina told us of an occasion when she was arrested by Germans, by the SS. She was alongside a railway station where there was a train full of Jewish men, women and children. She was only a teenager. She had on a new dress that had been made out of her mother's old petticoat. During wartime in Holland wearing anything new was frowned on, so the other young people, her friends in her village, were teasing her over her new dress, made out of a second-hand petticoat. They threw her into a pond. She had her identity card in her pocket and, as a result of the wetting, the thumb print was blurred and the official stamp on her photograph was blurred. She was going to visit some friends on her bicycle and she was pulled up. I am talking about humanity. I am talking about an individual human being. I am talking about an Australian citizen of Dutch birth. This woman, this friend of mine, was hauled by the SS into a railway box alongside the railway station and interrogated for hours. Standing on the siding was a train filled with Jewish men, women and children. I do not know where they were going; it was not to a good place. For hours while she was being interrogated, she heard the cries and the screams and she saw the urine and the ordure from these human beings dripping down through the floor of the cattle cars. Dr Charlesworth —You phoney. Mr NEHL —How dare the honourable member for Perth laugh. The honourable member for Perth is laughing. Don't you dare call me a phoney. Go and play your hockey or something. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member for Cowper will-- Mr NEHL —Of course, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will address my remarks through the Chair. Mr Campbell —Give him a tranquilliser. Mr NEHL —The honourable member for Kalgoorlie should watch out for his submarines. This friend of mine was forced to the point of practically being at the stage, at the point of saying `Yes I am Jewish' because that is what they were trying to make her do. They were trying to force her to say that she was Jewish so that they could put her in the cattle car. She got to the point of almost being prepared to admit to this crime of being Jewish, which she was not. Fortunately for her, a collaborator came in and said: `Hello, Reina. What are you doing here?' He was from her village. As a result of that, she was released; she was let go and she survived. But the pressure was so great that she got to the point where she almost confessed to being something that she was not. Only three weeks ago she said to me that she got to the point where she thought: `Why would God want me to survive when these other people are going to their death?'. I have been accused of some form of acting, I suppose, by the honourable member for Perth. Mr Campbell —I did that too. You are a sham. Mr NEHL —And by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. But those listening to the Parliament will know where they stand. Let us have no doubt and no hesitation in letting the people know that what we are doing here tonight in this place is talking about the future of Australia. We are talking about the future of Australian democracy: If any member of this place is not concerned about the future of Australian democracy, if any member of this place is not concerned about the future of this country, he or she should not be here. We are talking about a philosophy-I come back to where I started-that asks: Is the state superior to the individual or are we all here to look after the individual? Mr Cobb —They will have tattoos on us next. Mr NEHL —As the honourable member for Parkes said, they will have tattoos on us next. The honourable member for Perth is laughing again about tattoos. Is he so young that he has never seen anyone with a tattoo on his arm? The honourable member for Kalgoorlie laughs too. I can tell him that they exist. There are still Australian citizens with them. Honourable members should just stop and think that a great many Australian citizens have experienced that. There are 55 countries in this world of ours that have identity cards. In only two of them-Sweden and West Germany-is it not compulsory to carry them all the time. the possibilities inherent in the introduction of this Australian Card are truly frightening. Mr Cobb —Internal passports. Mr NEHL —As the honourable member for Parkes said, they would be internal passports. In fact, already there are parts of mainland Australia where we cannot go unless we have a visa. I refer to some of the Aboriginal communities. I have been banned from going into an Aboriginal community north of Cooktown. Mr Cobb —Why? Mr NEHL —I do not really know why; I have a great deal of affection for Aboriginal people. I am concerned about their welfare the same as I am concerned about the welfare of all Australians. Unfortunately we have a situation which has been put forward by this Hawke Government. Let us just consider the cynicism that has brought this Australia Card Bill back into this place unaltered, even though the Minister for Health wanted, desired and intended that there should be some amendments to it. It is a cynical exercise in politics. Mr Slipper —It is a sham. Mr NEHL —It is a sham, indeed. It has been brought back here unaltered purely to provide an early election trigger should the Prime Minister in his foolishness think that he will win an early election. I think I should take this opportunity to assure him and the people of Australia that if he is so foolish-- Mr Slipper —Misguided. Mr NEHL —And misguided as to call an early election, be it on 9 May or a little later, I do not care. In fact, the sooner he brings on an election, the better for me. The sooner he brings on an election, the better for Australia. I see again that the honourable member for Perth and the honourable member for Kalgoorlie are laughing. They just do not think it is important. We have a total exercise in cynicism from the Prime Minister because all he is doing is bringing this back on, not because he really wants to introduce the Australia Card but because he wants to have a trigger to call an early election just in case tomorrow's polls or the polls next week suddenly say: `Hallelujah, Bob, you are going to win'. But there is no way he will win because the people of Australia have had a total and absolute gutful of high interest rates. Let us face it, interest rates in this country leave for dead the interest rates of our competitors. We can look at inflation. Last year inflation in this country was 9.8 per cent. If one takes the last six months of last year and extrapolates those figures for the whole of the 1986-87 financial year one finds that the inflation rate is very close to 11 per cent. How does that compare with some of our trading partners? We are coming up to 11 per cent inflation while the United States of America has only 3 per cent inflation. We are supposed to compete with it. Japan has minus 0.3 per cent inflation. Mr Slipper —How much? Mr NEHL —Minus 0.3 per cent. West Germany is even lower-minus 1.3 per cent. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) had the hide and the utter gall to come in here and say that it is because of macroeconomics and because of world factors-- Mr Campbell —I rise on a point of order. Mr McGauran —For heaven's sake, you are a disgrace. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland will cease interjecting. Mr Campbell —Mr Deputy Speaker, I would ask you not to be too hard on the honourable member for Gippsland. He recognises from whence I come. My point of order is that I hardly see how the interest rates of Australia or other countries are relevant to this Bill. I take a very liberal view of these things, but interest rates are simply not pertinent to the Bill before us. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thought that the honourable member for Cowper was illustrating a point that I hope he is going to get to shortly. Mr NEHL —Mr Deputy Speaker, of course, he has got too many points already and he will proceed down the trail to many more. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not think that the honourable member for Cowper will proceed down too many trails other than the Australia Card legislation. Mr NEHL —The trail that I am talking about, Mr Deputy Speaker, is the trail to prosperity for Australia. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If that trail leads to the Australia Card, that is fine. Mr NEHL —The Australia Card is unfortunately a by-pass on that trail. I appreciate the nervousness of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie in taking his fatuous point of order. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Cowper will not bring the honourable member for Kalgoorlie back into the debate. He will get on with the matter before the House. Mr NEHL —Mr Deputy Speaker, I would highly prefer not to bring him back into this debate or into any other. In fact, at the next election he will probably lose his seat, so this may be his last chance to have a go. As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, the inflation rates are relevant. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It is not really proper to suggest that an honourable member taking a point of order was rudely interrupting you. And I hope that you were not suggesting that by calling the honourable member for Kalgoorlie the Chair was rudely interrupting you. You have been a member of this House long enough to understand the forms of the House. Mr NEHL —Mr Deputy Speaker, had you ever had the desire to interrupt me rudely or otherwise, I would be delighted to always seek your wisdom and guidance. The point I was making is relevant to this whole debate of the Australia Card because the Australia Card will cost $2,000 billion. Mr Campbell —What? Mr NEHL —Did I say that wrongly? It will cost only $1,000 billion. Mr Sharp —Two thousands. Mr NEHL —Yes, $2,000 billion. I thank the honourable member for Gilmore very much. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There are too many other honourable members attempting to assist. Mr NEHL —I could not agree more, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish you would protect me and stop them interrupting. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Indeed, the honourable member for Cowper is encouraging others to assist him. I hope that he will address the matter before the Chair, not seek comments from his colleagues on both sides of the House, and will proceed with the matter before us. Mr NEHL —Mr Deputy Speaker, all I need is your assistance and guidance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I can assure the honourable member for Cowper that I intend giving him neither assistance nor guidance. Mr NEHL —Why not? Mr McGauran —You are in the chair-Own up to your responsibilities. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Gippsland will find that one of the responsibilities of a member is to hear someone else in silence, otherwise he might hear the honourable member from outside the House on the radio. Mr NEHL —In conclusion, unfortunately because of all these interruptions my time is running out, I think it most appropriate that we should consider particularly what the honourable member for Capricornia said, that there will be no wider uses of the ID card and that there will be nothing else introduced. I refer honourable members to an article that appeared in the Sunday Mail of 15 March 1987 at page 41. It is hardly hot news on page 41. Nevertheless, the headline was: `Wider uses for ID cards'. The article was by Fia Cumming, who I am sure deserves better than page 41. The article stated: The Government authority in charge of the Australia Card has suggested expanding the card's uses once it has passed through Parliament. In a confidential document, the Health Insurance Commission- if we can believe anything of it- proposed that the card begin with strict limits on its use and the accompanying database. But when it had been accepted by the public the HIC suggested extra, more controversial, data and uses could be introduced. The document also reveals how the HIC planned to gain public support for the card by emphasising only the benefits and choosing a harmless name. . . . . ``It will be important to minimise in advance public reaction to implementation of the system,'' it stated. ``One possibility would be to use a staged approach for implementation, whereby only less sensitive data is held in the system initially, with the facility to input additional data at a later stage when public acceptance may be forthcoming more readily.'' That is the crux of the whole thrust of the Australian Card-to deceive the Australian people and to introduce a system that will make us all slaves of a future government. All thinking people in Australia have to say to the Hawke Government: `No, we do not want your Australia Card. We want to remain free people. We want democracy to survive in this country'. To do that we have to get a change of government. The sooner the Hawke Government calls an election, the better, because we will beat it hands down. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Perth. Mr McGauran —Good to see you back in Parliament House for a change. Dr CHARLESWORTH(Perth)(8.59) —Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr McGauran —How many days have you been away? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland has been interjecting all evening. I think I gave him a view earlier that he might have to leave if he wishes to continue this. Dr CHARLESWORTH —I quote from the Australian newspaper, which is not especially a purveyor of Australian Labor Party views: There is no sacred right to refuse to identify oneself when engaging in transactions which could affect one's income tax liability. It is a view which I think underlines the thrust of this legislation. The Government and indeed we as members of this House-and I would agree with the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) on this point-are custodians of public interest. As such, it is the responsibility of the Government to raise funds through the Australian Taxation Office and to spend that money in establishing programs in the areas of health, defence, education, community services, transport, aviation, immigration-I could go on and on-and in a whole range of other activities and to spend that money as efficiently and effectively as possible. More than a quarter of the Federal Budget every year is spent in social security. It is vital that that money which is spent in the area of social security on behalf of all Australians and for all Australians should be spent efficiently and effectively. The thrust of this legislation is to see that we raise money in the fairest possible way so that those who presently are able to avoid their tax obligations are not able to do so and that the expenditure of money is efficient and effective. Four or five months ago in this place members of the Opposition opposed this legislation. They opposed it on the grounds that it would infringe civil liberties, that it was too expensive and for a number of other reasons. At that time they did not really have a policy or a suggestion which was an alternative. They had toyed with the tax file number, but when that was raised as an amendment in the Senate they voted against it. So, at a cost to the Australian taxpayers of $300m or $400m, because we have been waiting that long to debate the legislation again in this place, we find ourselves here again today. The honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), the shadow Minister who has responsibility in this area, again today acknowledged the need for a more efficient identification system. He complained, as he usually does, about the costs and about the inefficiency of the Australian Tax Office and then in the last two minutes of his speech he scratched together a few strands of a new policy. Those opposite were going to tighten up this, reinforce that, and upgrade something else; and, of course, the perennial old one that they have been trotting out for some time-they would introduce work for the dole which would, in some way, be some significant saving when it has been costed by the Government at something like $300m in expenditure. Then right at the end of his speech out came the figure of $2,735m. That was the amount by which their policy would be more cost-efficient and more cost-effective than that which is enshrined in this legislation. Indeed, not one speaker on the other side of the House has endorsed that amount and not one speaker subsequently-there have been four-has suggested that there was any credibility in the figure he brought forward at all. The honourable member for Cowper and the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), in their most unctuous contributions, suggested that, if in the future Australia was to be occupied by some foreign power, the establishment of this legislation would in some way be used against us. The honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt) and the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) talked about civil libertarian concepts. While the honourable member for North Sydney also did a bit of nitpicking about the costings-I have heard him in this place many times talk about civil liberties-I accept his contribution. But I cannot accept the suggestion from the honourable member for Richmond that in some way we were producing a big brother which would be looking over the shoulder of every Australian-a dossier on financial transactions which would be produced in respect of every Australian. I think it is necessary for us to understand that all the information about which members of the other side of the House were concerned is already available. The 8 1/2 million Australians who have a credit card have already given that information to a private organisation and the information is within the financial institutions, within the credit card companies, and is available and circulating. We need to understand that there has been a profound change in society over the last 50 years. Now it is possible for people to travel across this country daily by air, by rail or by car. Fifty years ago the population was much more stable. People were less mobile. Even the growing cities had much more cohesive and small environments and, indeed, there were smaller suburbs and smaller towns. Business was transacted with people whom one knew. A cash system operated almost exclusively, and previously there was a barter system. It is only now that the majority of transactions that people undertake every day are anonymous. How does one trust a person one does not know? If one is in business, how does one establish a person's identity? There are 8 1/2 million Australians who have a credit card. They have a credit card because they need identification. Reliable identity cards for commercial purposes are the business that credit card companies and banks are in. How do we get a credit card? We get one by releasing detailed personal information and establishing a satisfactory credit rating. Indeed, all that information, which is then available to those credit card companies and financial institutions, circulates. If members of the Opposition are concerned that all sorts of information will be in some way perverted by this legislation, they are completely off the point and miss the thrust of this legislation completely. I ask honourable members: What if the Government was to set up an agency or public sector authority to collect and hold the following information on Australian citizens? I will read out this list: Their name and address and a personal identifying number; their age; a full history of addresses where they have lived; people with whom they have lived; various occupations they have followed; names of all who have employed them; how much they paid them; whether or not they have changed their name; the name of their spouse; whether they are married or divorced or widowed; whether they are living away from their spouse; the names and ages of their children; whether their children live with them; whether their children go to state or private schools; the details of any various pre-nuptial or ex-nuptial children; whether they are unmarried parents; any periods of unemployment or sickness; what social welfare payments they have received; the names of trusts and partnerships of which they are members; the names of any companies of which they are directors and any remuneration they receive; the details of all institutions in which they hold funds; the identity of companies in which they hold shares; any life assurance policies; a description of all property owned by them; when it was acquired and what it was sold for; its purchase price; its sale price; any profit made on its sale; any interest held in any property or business outside Australia; the location of the property; a description of it; the names and addresses of any companies, trusts or partnerships outside Australia in which they have an interest. I can go on and on: The names of any trade unions, businesses or professional associations of which they are members; the annual membership fees; the names of organisations and institutions which they support financially; and, if they have had high medical expenses, the details of all illnesses and treatments, including psychiatric treatment. If we were to set up some sort of public institution to gather all that information, I am sure we would hear haranguing from the other side of the House and all sorts of cries about civil libertarian views. But as most people will have realised, what I have just given them is a list of the information which is already held by the Australian Taxation Office. Yet people on the other side of the House are trying to tell us that this identity card in some way infringes the civil liberties of Australian citizens. The Australian Taxation Office already holds all that information. The question here is a balance between the benefits to the community of a proposed course of action and the possible threat to individual liberties. I cannot imagine how anybody can suggest that giving one's name and surname, a photograph of a person, a signature, date of birth, sex and residential and postal address means that this card infringes on civil liberties. Indeed, the Government has for a long time accepted the view that it is legislating in many areas for the benefit of citizens and at times infringes on their liberties. We accept that there has to be a balance between those two things. It is necessary for us to look at areas where this occurs already. Let us look at the Australian Customs Service. We accept that it is the right of a Customs officer to search someone coming into Australia. Perhaps he is importing something illegal-perhaps wild life, drugs, or animal matter-which in some way can infringe on, or be of harm to, the community as a whole. We accept that it is reasonable for the Government to legislate in that way. We accept that when we go away on an aeroplane we can be searched because we understand the problem with hijacking and the fact that people may be carrying weapons, concealed drugs or whatever. We accept it as reasonable for governments to legislate so that, if we drive over the speed limit, a policeman can stop us and ask to see our drivers licence, that he can perhaps test us on the possible level of alcohol in our blood, and that he can make some sort of statement as to whether we were or were not wearing a seat-belt. In many areas we accept the balance between the community interest and the interest of the individual. The suggestion that the legislation in some way infringes on that is absurd and arrant nonsense. It is necessary for members of the Opposition to drag themselves out of the Middle Ages and to appreciate that it is important to have an effective identification system. Almost every democracy in continental Europe requires an identity card or unique ID number. In 1936 the United States of America established a system involving a social security number. A similar system operates in Canada. There have been great criticisms of the systems in the United States and Canada because their systems are of low integrity and have been shown to be inefficient. Why were those systems established? Why was it that in the United States in 1936 it became necessary to establish a social security number system? Clearly, following the Great Depression, governments became aware of the necessity to provide entitlements to those who were in hardship. There was an expansion in entitlements. Public relief and public insurance programs became available. Social security insurance and dependent children's aid became available. Assistance for the unemployed, the disabled, the aged and veterans became available. It was necessary for governments to identify those who were entitled to those benefits and, in some way, make sure that those benefits were paid to those who had the entitlement. Unfortunately, the United States system was one of low integrity. It was necessary, to establish a social security number, only for a person to declare that he thought he had an entitlement. As a consequence, forgery, tampering and abuse are rampant in the United States. The United States system is inefficient and ineffective. We have the opportunity, by establishing this legislation, to avoid the mistakes of other countries and to have a high integrity, much more efficient system. That is the thrust of the legislation. I cannot imagine why the Opposition cannot understand that it is the responsibility of this Government, and of us in this Parliament, to ensure that the money which the Government raises is raised fairly and that the money which the Government spends is spent efficiently and in the right way. Five months ago the Opposition had no policies. Now it has a mish-mash of policies such as: `We will tighten this, reinforce that, perhaps upgrade something and perhaps introduce a scheme to make people work for the dole'. However, the Opposition still does not have a policy in this area. It is important for us to understand that it is necessary for the Government to make these savings and to ensure that government money is spent effectively. There is another aspect to the legislation which is important and which some people have not talked about; that is, the deterrent effect which will accrue from the establishment of the Australia Card. It is clear that there are an estimated 60,000 illegal immigrants in the country. Those people are in this country contrary to the laws. It is an affront to those who are patiently waiting to go through the proper procedures. It is important to understand that, once illegal immigrants are in this country, they are often exploited by unscrupulous employers; they escape the tax system; and, at other times, they make demands on social security and Medicare. By establishing the Australia Card we will make it more difficult for them to be employed. We will control financial transactions and we will protect the welfare and Medicare systems from fraud by those people. It will be a major deterrent to illegal immigration and it will be a way in which we can certainly save significant amounts of money in that area, if not stop this occurring. It is important to consider the effect of the Australia Card on crime. Two royal commissions recommended that banks require greater proof of identity and that identity procedures had to be tightened. While there is a great deal of money in the cash economy in the area of organised and, I suppose, disorganised crime, we must understand that organised crime has money in other areas. The Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union stated: Criminals seek to possess wealthy homes, land, expensive cars, yachts, and incur high living expenses . . . they may pay for much by cash; but ultimately . . . they find the normal financial institutions far more convenient and seemingly no less safe to use . . . this leads to the creation of large accounts with many taxation vouchers. Once located, those vouchers provide a fertile source of intelligence to the investigator. Clearly, the establishment of the Australia Card will play a part in rooting out those who are involved in organised crime. It will not be necessary for people to carry the card every day. It is not every day that one buys a property, opens a bank account or engages a new stockbroker. It may be the case for some members of the Opposition, but it certainly is not for the ordinary Australian. It is not even every day that one has to visit a doctor. Indeed, all of those functions will require the production of the Australia Card. There will be no penalty for unintentional clerical errors. The Card will not infringe on privacy. All of those things are red herrings that have been drawn across the path by members of the Opposition. The Opposition has tried to find reasons for opposing the Australia Card. It says that there will be the manufacture of false ID cards. Perhaps we should not have cash available, because it is possible to forge money. Perhaps credit cards should not be used because it is possible to forge credit cards. They do not have the same integrity that this system will have. In all of those cases, there is a belief that the benefits outweigh the costs. Australians can see that this is an honest attempt by the Government to improve the efficiency with which we collect money through the Australian Taxation Office and to make the system fairer. It is an honest attempt to make sure that the expenditure in many of our programs is paid to those who deserve and are entitled to it. I have great pleasure in endorsing the legislation. I hope that it will gain the support of the Opposition not only in this place but also in the Senate. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(9.18) —I welcome this opportunity to speak on such a vital issue as the Australia Card Bill 1986 (No. 2), given that this autocratic and authoritarian socialist Government so unceremoniously gagged my speech during the last debate. I would like to commend the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl) for his compassionate understanding of the evil implications and evil potential of such an insidious Bill as that currently being debated in this place. The principles of liberty, equality, justice and humanity are the foundation stones upon which a free and democratic society are built and the guarantees and safeguards on which its continued existence depends. This debate today is not so much about whether we can or should introduce a compulsory national identification system but whether we are prepared to ignore and undermine these basic democratic principles. The acceptance of the one concept is, in the final analysis, the rejection of the others. There may be persuasive and seemingly very reasonable arguments used to justify the implementation of the Government's Australia Card proposal, but they must be considered very carefully against the arguments in favour of preserving and maintaining the rights and privileges that Australians are indeed fortunate to enjoy-- Mr Slipper —A free society. Mr HALVERSON —A free society; one that we must move, at all expense, to guarantee now and in future, and which we must be vigilant to protect-rights and privileges which are unknown, denied or restricted in many other countries, but which we take almost for granted; our personal privacy, civil liberties and individual freedoms. Perhaps it is because we have become rather complacent that we are sometimes slow to recognise when these most precious principles and ideals are being threatened and we are hesitant in our reactions to defend our rights, because it is not always immediately obvious how they are under attack. We have them now, so we presume that we will always have them. Such presumptions are dangerously naive and demonstrably incorrect. The greatest dangers lie not in the obviously easily identifiable threats but in the apparantly innocent, inconsequential actions which are promoted as being fair, necessary and beneficial. The idea of giving a little to gain a lot is an attractive and simple proposition to market, but sometimes even a little is far too much. A little given or taken frequently soon amounts to a lot more than may have been originally anticipated. James Madison once observed: `There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations'. Slowly whittled away, bit by bit, or sledge-hammered into oblivion with one well directed blow the result is the same. The former approach is, of course, more subtle than the latter and much harder to detect, but it is only a different means by which to achieve the same end. This proposed legislation to introduce a national identification register is being sold to us on the basis that it will provide a workable, practical and acceptable solution to the significant and increasing problems of tax evasion, health and welfare fraud, organised crime, drug trafficking, illegal immigration, and a plethora of other undesirable and offensive activities; activities which are practiced by those who contrive and who are determined to abuse in uncommonly bad ways a system which has been designed, however imperfectly, to serve the common good. There can be no denying that problems do exist, but the introduction of a compulsory identification card is not a proper nor an acceptable solution. This legislation will allow the State and the bureaucracy to abrogate the rights of the many in the hope that they may apprehend the despicable and selfish few. As a result, the vast majority of decent, honest, law abiding citizens will be dispossessed of their personal privacy and will have their irreplaceable rights and privileges downgraded, thus increasing their vulnerability to the big brother scenario which was once considered implausible but which is now becoming a frightening reality. Mr Slipper —Under Labor. Mr HALVERSON —Under Labor now and under any subsequent Labor soclialist government. Hopefully, we have seen the last of them. To excuse and justify this dangerous proposal by claiming that it will clean up the corrupt, criminal and parasitic elements in our society is a confidence trick of monstrous proportions. The Government is well aware of these facts and has therefore sought to ignore them in its ID card marketing campaign by adopting yet again the `politics of envy' tactic-the shoddy and shallow strategy of emphasising and concentrating on the `let's get even' aspects of its insidious scheme. If it really wants to get even it can start doing so now by instructing the appropriate authority to use the existing legislation in a more efficient and therefore more effective manner. The `get even' measures already exist, but they are not being used. Why do we need more laws when the ones we have now are not being given a chance to work. If the Government is really genuine in its desire to beat the cheats and those who exploit the system, and can demonstrate that it has tried to overcome the problems but is being defeated by the inadequacies of existing legislation let it tighten up the system and the legislation. But any tightening must be by fair rather than by foul means. Let it improve and strengthen existing laws and regulations. But at the same time it must realise its actions will be futile unless it also ensures that resources are available whereby these measures can be and are enforced. The only real deterrent to those who contrive to break the law is the certainty of being caught and suitably punished. After all this has been done, if specific problem areas still remain, only then should we contemplate introducing new and additional legislation. But we must always remember that evil practices cannot and will not be overcome by evil laws. Therefore, any new laws will be acceptable only if they are good laws, and good laws are ones that work only to the detriment of, have an adverse influence or effect upon, or reduce the rights and privileges of those who break and abuse them. Mr Slipper —This is a bad law. Mr HALVERSON —This is indeed a bad law. The Australia Card legislation is not, by any definition, the basis for a good law. It will not provide proper and adequate solutions to the difficult problems of graft, corruption and greed which manifest themselves in the spiralling white and blue collar crime rates which currently confront us. This Government maintains that it wants to protect the rights of the people, yet it sets about doing so by proposing legislation which restricts those rights. It is very easy to protect rights by restricting them. We need only have a few laws based on this premise and we will have no rights left to protect. The problem will then have solved itself. Furthermore, the instigators of this Orwellian legislation have the temerity to endeavour to disguise their true intentions under a mask of respectability by calling the seemingly innocuous, but nonetheless obnoxious, plastic identity tag, the Australia Card. There would be very few things less Australian in concept and character than a compulsory identity card. The proposal is totally un-Australian in design, in principle, and in practice. The Hawke Government is being altogether rather too coy. It should demonstrate the courage of its convictions by being brutally frank and honest by calling this small but powerful machine made computer controlled menace `the personal privacy invader'-that is what it really is. Many honourable members opposite who support the Australia Card proposal may be well-meaning, well-intentioned and sincerely motivated by a desire to put a stop to the unwelcome activities of undesirable and irresponsible people who do not pay their taxes, or who rob the public purse of millions of dollars each year, but they are lacking in foresight and understanding if they imagine that this legislation is the best solution. In fact, it is a far greater abuse of the rights of ordinary Australian citizens than could ever result from the activities of all the tax evaders and dole cheats combined. This is truly an instance where the hackneyed phrase about the cure being worse than the disease can be justifiably employed. The legislation we are debating today is littered with uncertainties and fraught with dangers. It may be presented to us with assurances that its very real potential for abuse and exploitation will never be authorised and, therefore, never realised. Such promises are easy to make and just as easy to break. Let it be clearly understood by every Australian that there is and can be no absolute and/or permanent guarantee that present or future governments will not or cannot amend the so-called safeguards that may now be contained in the proposed legislation, but which can be altered or deleted by any government of any political persuasion which has the inclination and the numbers so to do. It will be a relatively simple matter to link up the various mushrooming data banks which hold information, often information of a very personal and private nature about you and me and all Australians and combine and exchange this data at will. The Australian Bureau of Statistics, which has been given increasing authority to pry into the day to day affairs of unsuspecting citizens who have already been deprived of the right to refuse to participate in its inquistorial activities, is potentially a very valuable and, therefore, highly vulnerable source of information. The ABS holds not only details compulsorily acquired from Australians during the Census, but also it collects an enormous amount of information on an ongoing basis. None of this relevant and sensitive data is provided anonymously. Medicare maintains files on every Australian who has lodged a claim for medical or hospital expenses; all highly confidential, all highly vulnerable. There are many instances, several in my electorate of Casey, where the confidentiality of the patient-doctor relationship has been breached by Medicare investigators. Information and records about patients and their illnesses are obviously readily available to Medicare employees and, via them, to the police and other authorities, all without prior knowledge or consent of the patient. The Australian Taxation Office is another agency which holds a substantial amount of confidential information about a lot of people, most of whom have no intention of breaking any laws or offending against any regulations. The Taxation Office has significant and far-reaching powers which enable its inspectors and investigators to obtain and use information without knowledge or consent of the taxpayers or taxpayers involved. It is unfortunately a matter of public record that the Taxation Office is sometimes more efficient in leaking information than it is in collecting it. These three agencies alone have the potential to provide detailed, confidential and personal information which could be used to prepare exhaustive profiles on any or all of the people who are already on their files-and that is most of us. There is, however, no guarantee as to the accuracy of this information or whether or not adequate provisions exist to allow errors to be rectified. There can certainly be no guarantee that the various departments have the ability or even the commitment or intention, to maintain total permanent confidentiality in regard to their files. The Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, with members from all the major political parties, has rigorously examined all aspects of the Australia Card proposal and has rejected the proposed legislation as being inappropriate, unjustifiable and unacceptable. After assessing evidence for and against the ID card the Committee voted five to three against the Goverment's proposals. One of those against included one of the Government's members. Mr Slipper —He had principles. Mr HALVERSON —One of the very few. The findings of the Committee, plus evidence and information available from other countries where some form of ID card is used, proved beyond doubt that the Government's proposal is ill-advised and misguided. The Australia Card will not provide efficient, cost-effective, workable or proper solutions to the difficult problems that currently exist. It will, however, undoubtedly destroy or encroach upon many of our fundamental rights and freedoms. Faced with all the indisputable evidence of the present vulnerability and shortcomings of the system and the potentially disastrous consequences for society as we know it if this or any future government decides to change its mind about what will and will not be included in the Australia Card Register, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) still maintains that one must question the motives of those who oppose the Australia Card proposal. I respectfully and sincerely suggest that one must instead be questioning the motives of those who wish to impose it. It is not a matter of what those who oppose the system are trying to get away with, but what those who would oppose the system are trying to do away with. Mr Slipper —Freedom. Mr HALVERSON —Freedom is such a rare commodity in this difficult world. As children we often played two innocent and entertaining games: `Who am I', where the clues are revealed one by one until at last there is no doubt in anybody's mind as to who the person in question is; and `I spy', where persistent questioning is used to uncover the identity of the thing or person being spied upon. Suddenly these games do not seem so innocent and entertaining anymore, now that the Government wants to play and is prepared to legislate so that it and its agencies will be the ones asking the questions, with the rest of us having no choice but to provide the answers. Mr JACOBI(Hawker)(9.34) —The Australia Card is but another weapon in this Government's armouring in the perpetual war against tax cheats and those who rip off the social security system, or those who trample on our immigration laws. We knew from the outset that this attack would create controversy and the fallout would be diversity, but surely as a government we are obliged to put in place a tax system based on fairness and equity and to ensure that we extend benefits only to those who deserve them. Obviously the Government is faced with the need to balance that against any possible threat to civil liberties and privacy that could be created by the introduction of a universal identification system. Poll after poll has shown that this initiative is long overdue and there is wide public support. After all, the public has been taken to the cleaners for nearly 30 years. It clearly reflects the community's concern about tax cheats who have been protected by those opposite when in government, whose philosophy of tax reform was clearly predicted on the very simple dictum that tax was made optional for the rich. Let me destroy some sacred myths revered by my friends opposite, who claim to be the custodians of our civil liberties and guardians of our privacy. It is sheer hypocrisy. I put one pertinent question: Where do they stand, for instance, on the issue of private data banks, particularly those relating to credit reference information? We are all aware of the massive growth of data bases in the private enterprise area. For example, banks routinely double check with other banks information given on loan applications, without customer approval. We are all aware of the two-way trading of credit information that occurs within the computer system. The minority report of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card, referring to the question of technology, had this to say: In short absolute privacy does not exist in a society which has up-to-date technology and accepts the use of that technology. If one is born, marries or begets children, if one buys or sells a house or land, if one borrows money, if one votes or receives an award wage, and if one pays tax, one is on a file somewhere and technology is already being used to draw those separate items of information together. This Government's decision to establish a data protection agency to protect individual privacy against the misuse of government files is a step in the right direction. Similarly, logging access of the Australia Card Register is a new element in privacy protection. It will require a public servant wanting to see a person's Australia Card file to record each request, together with the reason for wanting that access. Access to the Register cannot be obtained until those requirements have been met. Professor Whalan of the Australian National University, a noted civil libertarian, said in evidence to the Committee: Perhaps one irony would be that if we do have an Australia Card with all those protections . . . our privacy may be better protected than it is now. When opponents talk about the capacity of criminals to defeat the challenge posed by the card, they forget one consistent trait of those who reap high financial rewards from all illegal activities. That trait is the compulsion to maintain a lifestyle commensurate with the rewards. Real estate is bought, legal investments are made and cash is generally converted to assets or investments, all creating a money trail that will be easy to follow with a universal identification system such as that proposed by the card. The Australian Taxation Office will then be able to link all sources of income to one number. My friend Commissioner Costigan put it perhaps more cogently when he said: Criminals seek to possess wealthy homes, land, expensive cars, yachts and incur high living expenses . . . They may pay for much much by cash; but ultimately . . . they find the normal financial institutions far more convenient and seemingly no less safe to use . . . this leads to the creation of large accounts with many taxation vouchers. Once located, those vouchers provide a fertile source of intelligence to the investigator. I say to honourable members opposite that we want to follow the money trail. That will take a lot of courage, physically and legislatively. Mr Aldred —Costigan opposes the Australia Card because he believes it is ineffective. Mr JACOBI —I disagree with him on that but I respect his opinion. Let me separate fact from fiction. We have not had too much fact tonight from the Opposition. In simple terms, the Australia Card is the medium on which a person's Australia Card number will be recorded. The card will be used in the verification of identity of all persons. That is the key to it. It will apply in the following: Opening and operating accounts with financial institutions; making investments; receiving income from cash management, property and unit trusts; receiving primary production income through produce agents and marketing authorities; receiving rents through real estate agents; making foreign remittances; buying real estate; operating safe deposit boxes; buying shares and receiving dividends; dealing in futures contracts; receiving salaries or wages; and receiving income subject to the prescribed payments system. This measure is long overdue. The wage and salary earners in this country have carried the load for far too long. This measure will lead to greater levels of compliance with taxation laws by ensuring that persons cannot open accounts or transact business in false names. Evasion of tax by the use of accounts in false names is not limited to tax on interest received. The capital often comes from a taxable source. By reason of the card having to be produced when a person opens an account or continues an account beyond the second relevant day, the opening of accounts in false names will be blocked off. Existing identification procedures by banks have failed-I stress that-to prevent the widespread use of accounts in false names. Other critical areas include the matching of information reports to the Tax Office. The card number will facilitate efficient matching of information received by the Tax Office with taxpayers' records. Information reported to the Tax Office is currently based on names and addresses. That requires significant resources to enable the matching of the information with returns of taxpayers. The problem in the area of information relating to interest, for example, lies not in ensuring that all interest payments are reported but in correctly matching reported interest payments with the returns of the taxpayers who derived interest. I do not know how many years I have been battling for that. Only about one-half of the interest reported to the Tax Office is correctly matched with taxpayers' returns. Matching problems arise not only because of accounts in false names but also because of spelling errors, transposition errors, use of abbreviated names, different forms of persons' names, common names, name changes and differing addresses. These problems can be overcome only by a unique identifier. What are the alternatives peddled by Opposition members. One is to upgrade the tax file number. This was at best an innovative and shoddy alternative useful only to get them off the hook when they realised just how popular the Australia Card was in the general community. Another alternative peddled by the Opposition is the hullabaloo we heard tonight from every Opposition speaker of improving the Tax Office, making it `do its job'. I have been here quite a while. I suppose there is nobody in this Parliament who has done more to try to reform the tax system than I have in my humble way. For 30 out of the last 36 years the people opposite were in government and in the specific area of reform in the Tax Office the Opposition has a track record as barren as the Saraha Desert. It is an appalling record. No doubt my friends opposite have applied their minds to the following messy and unpalatable alternatives to overcome tax evasion. Let us have a look at the proposal the Opposition has floated to some extent concerning the withholding tax system. It will be necessary to look at each category of income to which withholding tax arrangements could apply-for example, interest, the most readily adaptable of all categories of income-to a withholding tax system. However, there are still some problems to consider. For example, there would still be an incentive to evade tax unless tax was withheld at the highest marginal rate. I would like some discussion opposite on that. Extension of the withholding tax system to rental income would result in tenants being required to deduct tax from rent due to their landlord and to remit that tax to the Taxation Office. As we all know, a withholding tax system presently applies in the case of salaries and wages and prescribed payments. However, the Australia Card will result in a further $142m tax being collected in respect of these categories of income. It has been estimated that the Australia Card program, when fully operational, will recover $724m which would otherwise be evaded. I refer to three components of that. For instance, it is anticipated that from accounts with financial institutions there will be a recovery of $190m; from business income, primary producers and rental income, $119m; and from employment, including the prescribed payment system, about $142m. What has not been touched on by many speakers tonight but what is of vital interest to many people in the community is that the Australia Card will be an invaluable weapon in the armoury against the appalling escalation of illicit drug trafficking in this country. I wish to take a few minutes to quote an extract from a speech I made on income tax Bills last year. I say to my friends opposite that the Australia Card is nothing more than one weapon in the armoury against tax cheats but I say sincerely that what is needed in the whole area is a multifaceted approach. It is not just a question of tidying up the Tax Office; it is not just a question of putting an ID card in place; it stretches right across the whole judicial system and the legislative system. We have taken a long time in this country to get a Commonwealth evidentiary Act. It is one of the weaknesses of the system. We ought to have a special division of the Federal Court to deal with breaches of commercial law. Mr McGauran —Why? Mr JACOBI —That is a very interesting question. In this country there has been an appalling record of dealing with pin-stripe crime in the corporate area. Mr McGauran —But the courts have dealt with it. Mr JACOBI —Have they? I shall give a classic example. I remember when the collapse of the Cambridge Credit Corporation Ltd took place 11 years ago. We say that the laws are in place. It has taken us more than eight years to get a common accounting standards procedure. We are still struggling to get that. Mr McGauran —But it is not the courts. Mr JACOBI —It is the laws. Mr McGauran —Yes, it's the laws, not the courts. Mr JACOBI —State courts invested with Federal jurisdiction, judges that sit on complex commercial fraud cases, are not really skilled to deal with complex fraud cases. That is one of the reasons why the banks in England went to the Government and asked the Roskill committee to look at the problem of spivs and charlatans ripping off the system because the court system could not cope with it. There is a lot of discussion in this country on the need for what we are talking about tonight. We need a multifaceted approach. We need effective legislation at a Federal level to deal with pin-stripe crime. We will not do that with the current co-operative system that is based on the lowest common denominator approach. There was an appalling spectacle with Cambridge Credit 11 years ago-the biggest corporate collapse that I can remember in recent years. It has taken the Corporate Affairs Commission in New South Wales 11 years to put its act together. Three weeks or a month ago we saw the appalling spectacle of a judge-I would not criticise the decision-ruling the case out on the basis of the 11 years it took the Corporate Affairs Commission to compile the case against the directors of the company. I think that is a travesty of justice. We cannot do much for shareholders in Cambridge Credit, but surely we have an obligation to protect debenture holders and creditors. There is a whole stream of cases in this country which we have failed to do anything about at a Federal level. My view is that the sooner we bring in Federal legislation in the companies, securities and takeovers areas and the futures market, the sooner we will bring stability to the system and stamp out a whole variety of rorts and ramps in it. Getting back to the identity card, why do we always demand accreditation from those who go to social service offices to get social service benefits? Why do we always put stringencies on the poor, but never demand accreditation from the rich? I could never understand that. I do not know for how many years we have tried to get bank regulations tightened up to ensure that every person pays his reasonable level of tax. We have had nothing but struggle with the banks, for as long as I have been here, to update regulations and make them more effective. The one thing that will make them more effective is matching between the two groups, the Australian Taxation Office and the banks. We will have to come around to that. I hope that we finally get it. The answers provided to questions on the Notice Paper the other day shows that at least we have come some of the way. Insofar as opposition to this card in this Parliament is concerned, tax evaders, welfare cheats, drug traffickers and illegal immigrants will applaud the Opposition from one end of the country to the other. But the ordinary taxpayers and the honest citizens of this country will regard the Opposition with the contempt it deserves. For far too long the taxpayers, the ordinary wage and salary earners, have carried the burden. The fight in the community about tax reform is squarely about the question of tax equity. For as long as I have been in this Parliament the philosophies of the conservatives have been predicated on one simple dictum: They believe in reform, provided it changes nothing. They are great on tax reform but very weak on specific tax reform measures. I have a very simple dictum that I apply to tax reform, which has stood the test of time well. My friends opposite have never liked it. I have always believed in the very simple dictum: To afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. It is with pleasure that I support this legislation. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(9.52) —The Bill before us is called the Australia Card Bill, but I do not intend to use that term throughout this discussion. I intend to call the card what it is, that is, a straight-out identity card. Even the name itself is part of the pseudo-patriotic dressing-up of this legislation. No amount of green and gold will camouflage the grey, intrusive nature of bureaucracy associated with this card. Mr Cobb —The name is a fraud. Mr ALDRED —The name is a fraud, as is everything else that goes with the card. The previous Government speaker, the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), indicated that the Government sees in this proposal great merit in dealing with problems in the areas of welfare fraud, tax evasion and illegal immigration. I intend to address quite specifically the problems which exist in those areas and how the resolution of those problems was perceived by the joint parliamentary committee which looked at this proposal. I will also address arguments which have been presented subsequently in relation to this matter. It is now a matter of record that the identity card proposal was rejected by a majority of the committee. It was rejected for very good reasons. In relation to welfare fraud, the Department of Social Security's evidence was that it believed that the matter of identity was not significant in prosecuting or investigating welfare fraud. It said that the principal problem in relation to fraud is the matter of overpayment and that the percentage of fraud perpetrated through the use of false identity in minimal. The Department went on to say that it believes that unless the security of the card is absolute the identity card may exacerbate the degree of fraud because once there is a card in existence it allows access to the entire system, which weakens the system even further. So the identity card, rather than being a means of cleaning up welfare fraud, could be the very vehicle by which welfare fraud could be extended. In its present form the card will not rectify the Department's major problem of people supplying false information on their income levels and domestic circumstances. So the evidence of the Department of Social Security given to the joint parliamentary committee overwhelmingly rejects the proposition that the card can be of any value in cleaning up welfare fraud. Further to that, just before Christmas last year the annual report of the Director of Public Prosecutions was brought down. It indicated again that welfare fraud is not being effectively controlled. It is interesting to go to the very reasons why the Director of Public Prosecutions said that that was not happening. He said that major welfare fraud was not being investigated properly because the Australian Federal Police did not have the resources to take up major cases in that area. The Director of Public Prosecutions cannot move in that area unless he has data and material provided by the AFP to go on. If this Government had not starved the Australian Federal Police of the effective resources to move in the area we would not be faced with this problem. Again, in relation to welfare fraud we have a rejection of the proposition that an identity card will solve any part of the problem at all. One has to go back to the base level and make sure that the major fraud in that area is properly investigated. One will not get any distance down the track unless one gives the Australian Federal Police the appropriate resources to investigate major fraud and then gives the necessary referred leads to the Director of Public Prosecutions to take matters further. They are the areas to fix up first, before one starts looking at fanciful propositions such as an identity card. Much nonsense has also been talked about illegal immigration. Anyone familiar with the problem of illegal immigration will know that the location of many illegal immigrants is well known to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The Australian Federal Police formerly had responsibility for moving in this area, responsibility which they no longer have because it has been handed over to untrained clerks in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to pursue. A sweep down Little Bourke Street in Melbourne, through the Chinese restaurants, would clean up many illegal immigrants. Likewise in Sydney, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs or the Australian Federal Police could move tonight and round up 600 illegal immigrants, because they know where they are. But what is the point? Then one gets into the long, drawn-out appeal procedures that have been set up over the years and finds that the Minister and the Department are unable to take any action against them. The location of many illegals is well known. The problem is not a matter of identity. Their identity and location are known. The problem relates to the fact that there is a lack of will and resources to do something about them and a lack of political will to overcome the cumbersome administrative practices and appeal procedures that are now in place to prevent them from being deported or other action being taken against them. That is the essential problem with illegal immigration. It is not the lack of an identity card. It is the fact that there is no will to do anything about the problem. Again we have heard much about how an identity card will solve the problems in the tax evasion area. Yet is quite clear from the report of the Auditor-General and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, of which I was proud to be a member some years ago-- Mr Hodgman —And a very good one. Mr ALDRED —Thank you; that is quite correct. The reports put down by those two bodies clearly indicate that the reason a lot of tax is not collected at the moment is the inadequate procedures in the Australian Taxation Office, particularly in relation to the collection of tax on interest and dividends which could be more effectively carried out if the ATO had appropriate resources and more modern procedures and practices. Again, an ID card is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the collection of ad- ditional tax. Mr Cobb —They can't even get a tax return from the Treasurer. Mr ALDRED —That is correct. The Taxation Office cannot even collect the tax return from our highly dubious Treasurer (Mr Keating). So how on earth will it pick up the revenue lost elsewhere in other areas in this country? If we look at the evidence overseas, we find that the issue of identity cards has been pursued by a number of countries, and quite unsucessfully. The very sad thing about Australia is that so often we have this unfortunate habit that, 10 to 15 years after something has been implemented overseas and failed, it becomes trendy and fashionable to try it out here. We have had all sorts of models perpetrated over the years. The gentlemen on the other side are very fond of the Swedish model. Other people are fond of the Canadian model, other European models and the American model. Once an idea has been tried out in other countries and has flopped, the bureaucracy here, a decade later, picks it up and wants to implement the same idea here, at the same time as those overseas are trying to get out of theirs. In the United States of America it is conservatively estimated that the forgery of social security cards currently costs $15 billion a year. That is a conservative estimate. Some estimates put it even higher at $20 billion or even higher. On the matter of the United States social security card, it is always interesting to note that, every time the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation picks up a drug courier, it finds that he is carrying six, seven, a dozen or more social security cards. So in the United States, social security cards apply across the whole population, with the law abiding majority using them and abiding by the rules. But those intent on breaking the law use them as a vehicle to further their intentions in that area. So there is a dragnet across the whole population, as is now proposed here, but the minority who are intent on breaking the law use the United States social security card as a means of furthering their illicit intentions in the areas in which they are interested. In Sweden, where there is a national identity system, it is estimated at the moment that the system still fails to prevent something like a 20 per cent loss of revenue to the black economy-a one-fifth loss of revenue to the black economy in Sweden today despite the fact that it has had in place for many years a very long established and very extensive identity system. Going back to the United States, it is also interesting to note that the United States Federal Advisory Committee on False Identification was strongly opposed to the introduction of a national identity card on the basis that it could benefit criminals and be beneficial to organised crime. That is obviously the case from what I said a few moments ago-that every time a drug courier is picked up in the United States, he is carrying multiple identity cards and has a different pseudonym that he uses in different areas of the United States as he moves around. If we go further down the track, we are aware too that the Australian Bankers Association believes, and has believed for some time, that, unless quite significant changes are made to the identity card legislation proposed here, a number of basic bank transactions will become unworkable. For instance, it says that credit card transactions, the acceptance of periodic payments such as pension cheques and the transfer of funds and cash withdrawals through access to automatic teller machines will all become unworkable. These views of the Australian Bankers Association were updated in the Age newspaper of only a week ago, Tuesday 17 March, when again the banks warned the Government that, unless some fairly substantial changes are made to the legislation, there is no way that the legislation could possibly work. In fact, Mr Alan Cullen, the Director of the Australian Bankers Association, said that the card's introduction would cost the banks between $60m and $70m in setting-up costs and a further $5m a year to run. So the banks have been quite consistent in their view that this system will have great difficulty in operating. Furthermore, as we are well aware, it has been estimated conservatively that the cost to the taxpayer of setting up this entire system will be $1 billion over 10 years-the cost of the new Parliament House, I point out-and it will require as a minimum 2,000 new Federal public servants to operate the system. Mr Cobb —Just what we want! Mr ALDRED —That is right; that is just what we want when we are trying to get the costs of the public sector down! They are the conservative estimates at the moment. But what will the cost be some years down the track, if this proposal gets off the ground? I do not think anyone really knows. Then we have the general estimate of a cost to business of $2 billion over a 10-year period for the implementation and setting up of the system. At a time when business is trying to cut costs to survive in both the rural and urban areas of this country, and at a time when we are trying to cut down public sector costs, we are talking about putting $1 billion extra onto the taxpayers, $2 billion extra on business and an extra 2,000 public servants. It is just unbelievable. One other area to which I wish to turn is the matter of privacy. Regrettably, this area has not received the attention that it deserves. Of course, people have been naturally concerned with the costs and the mechanics of the administrative implementation of the proposal. The privacy area has tendered to be ignored. I think this is the great sleeper out in the community from many of the comments that have been made to me. There is a silent majority out there who are far more concerned about the privacy implications of this whole proposal than many people realise. As the debate runs further and further on, the privacy aspect will come to the surface more and more. We are all well aware from evidence in the United States and also in this country of how insecure most computer systems are. We know from evidence in the United States, here and western Europe how easily amateur computer hackers can break into computer systems, including the computer systems of some major corporate structures. If amateur computer hackers can get into a system, why cannot organised crime? In fact, Frank Costigan and Doug Meagher, both associated with the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, both pointed out the potential benefit of an identity card system to organised crime. That is why Frank Costigan QC has so strongly opposed the identity card proposal. Because of his involvement in the Royal Commission and his subsequent interest, he has certainly expressed great concern about the problem of organised crime. But he does not see the identity card as a way out of the problem. It is interesting also to note that another interested party, the Australian Federal Police, has grave doubts about the effectiveness of an identity card. In fact some of its members have said to me: `If we could have but a fraction of the resources that will be devoted to setting up the ID card system, we could achieve so much more in cracking down on illegal immigration and welfare fraud'. By being selective, and with just a fraction of the financial and manpower resources that will go to setting up the ID card system, so much more could be achieved. In fact, probably one of the great problems of this proposal is that it is not selective enough. It is a dragnet across the whole population. It is like taking a sledge-hammer to crack nuts. The way to get to grips with problems such as illegal immigration, tax evasion and social security fraud is by very selective and precise measures. One has to target exactly what one wants and go after it with a vengeance. Across the board measures are quite useless in that regard. Returning to the area of privacy, this leads me to express concern about where this proposal will take us in the longer term. We know that when the proposal was first mooted only a small number of Federal departments asked for access to the card. But, as the deliberations of the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card went on, greater numbers of departments started requesting the right to be accessed to the card. I can see that, once this system is set up, over a period of time, with successive changes of government, we will get a greater body of the Federal bureaucracy asking to be accessed. It is no wonder that, for instance, Mr Justice Kirby, President of the New South Wales Court of Appeal, has been moved to say: What is at stake is nothing less than the nature of our society, and the power and authority of the state in relation to the individual. Mr Roger Clarke, Reader in Information Services at the Australian National University, also said: . . . The Government had failed to demonstrate the overwhelming case necessary to justify such a `gross attack' on the fabric of Australian society. That again comes back to the basic proposition that I mentioned before-that what is being attempted here is to put a dragnet across the whole population instead of approaching these problems in the precise, selective way in which they can be approached. In that regard it is worth looking at what could eventually happen over a period if the system is extended further. I draw your attention to the Swedish system where a very extensive data bank is held on every Swedish citizen. I will just give a couple of case studies to show the potential abuse that exists. Last year a journalist went into the local county office of the town in which he was resident in Sweden and gave the name of a citizen. He was subsequently given the full name, address and personal identification number of that citizen. Using the personal identification number of that citizen and the personal identification number of that citizen's wife, the journalist was able to obtain the following information: Their tax returns from the tax office; details of birth from the parish office; vehicle details from the vehicle register; and copies of passport pictures, together with copies of their passport applications, which included their legal signatures-the perfect base for a forgery. That is how far down the track the Swedish system has got. That system is now open to widespread external abuse. I quote parts of an article from the Swedish newspaper Expressen of 6 June 1986. The article was headlined `The Swedish Citizenry Register is abroad and is used by foreign countries among other things to check Swedes who apply for Visas'. The article stated: When two Gotlanders- Gotland is a small island off Sweden- were picked up by the Soviet Coastguards in the spring of 1983 they were taken ashore for interrogation and identity control-all they needed to do was to give their personal identity numbers. They handed over their PI numbers and everything about them immediately became available to the Soviet coastguards who picked them up. The Swedish system has got so far down the track that not only can anyone within Sweden obtain full data on any other Swedish citizen in relation to all the areas I described earlier when that journalist went into his local county office and started the whole process moving, but also people external to Sweden can now obtain all the information they want in relation to any Swedish citizen. Therefore, it is no wonder that the Swedes have been reviewing their system and have been thinking of ways to get out of it, but they do not quite know how to because they have gone so far down the track. The real reason for this legislation is so that the Government can try on an election if it wants to. All I say is: Let the Government come at it because its internal passport will become its pass out of office. Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: Commonwealth Guarantees (Charges) Bill 1986 Australian Industry Development Corporation Amendment Bill 1986 Motion (by Mr Cohen) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.13) —I have raised in this House now on two occasions and I wish again to raise tonight the question of the attempt by the Hawke socialist Government to close down the Tasmanian forest industries. The Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) presented legislation which went through this House last week. Unfortunately, due to circumstances for which I alone was responsible, I was absent from the House for 24 hours and therefore was not able to make the contribution which I wished to make. Accordingly, and without in any way reflecting on the vote in the House, I want to speak tonight to give some advice, if I may, to those in the chamber across King's Hall who are currently considering this legislation. The more I look at the legislation, the more I am convinced that is unconstitutional. I have been back to look at the famous Gordon below Franklin case in the High Court of Australia. In that case the High Court by majority held that the Commonwealth did have power to prevent the building of the Gordon below Franklin dam, but that power was based on section 51, placitum 29 of the Constitution-the external affairs power. Expressly the High Court said that that power related to Australia's treaty obligations in relation to areas which had actually been listed on the World Heritage. I have to point out to this chamber that in the areas set out in the Bill which has gone from this place to the Senate the Commonwealth seeks to exert influence by ministerial edict over 260,000 hectares-over a quarter of million hectares-of native Tasmanian sovereign land. This centralist Hawke socialist Government desires to exert influence. Mr Cobb —So much for States' rights. Mr HODGMAN —So much for States' rights. This centralist socialist Government hates Tasmania and repeatedly picks on Australia's smallest State. The bullying centralist Canberra dogma must have its way. As my colleague the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), will well confirm, the Government does not give a damm about its vote in Tasmania. It is quite prepared to write off any chance of winning any of the five House of Representatives seats. It is after the greenie vote in the trendy metropolitan Melbourne and Sydney seats. That is what it is after. As my colleague the shadow Minister will confirm, it will not get those votes because the rational conservationists in Melbourne and Sydney can see through the Government for the fraud that it is. Mr Deputy Speaker, did you know that of the 260,000 hectares that this all powerful, all dominating and all bullying Hawke socialist Goverment is trying to lock up we are not just talking about World Heritage but about the National Estate and about private property? It might upset the Minister but I want to say that his legislation contains four of the most totalitarian clauses ever brought before this Parliament. Clause 14 contains the right of forcible entry on any private property in Tasmania upon which it is believed that forestry resources are contained. That right is given by this outrageous Government not just to members of the Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests but to any other person authorised in writing-ergo Jonathon West. Honourable members should look at the provisions of clause 17. This Minister can go to the Federal Court of Australia or the High Court of Australia and get an injunction on more favourable terms than any other person in the Commonwealth of Australia. He does not have to prove that an act has been done, that there is a likelihood of it being repeated or that there is imminent danger. The law of Australia has been subverted for the purpose of giving the Minister a preference over any other litigant. Honourable members should look at clause 19, where the right of compensation is restricted, which again contravenes section 51 of the Constitution. It provided that compensation is payable only in the first instance. Those in the secondary and tertiary categories get nothing. This is totalitarian authoritarian legislation. This Government stands condemned. I trust that the Senate in its wisdom will reject it neck and crop. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(10.18) —In tonight's adjournment debate I take the opportunity to give an example of what I believe most politicians have-a sixth sense about psychology. Just before the outbreak of the Second World War one of the national leaders of Europe said: For over five years this man has been chasing around Europe like a madman in search of something he could set on fire. Unfortunately, again and again he finds hirelings who open the gates of their country to this international incendiary. On hearing this particular passage one automatically thinks of Adolf Hitler. However, this speech was made by Hitler about Churchill just before the outbreak of World War II. It is known that people very often project onto others their own inner feelings and their own problems, and blame others for their own inadequacies. They do this unconsciously and thereby never really resolve the inner turmoil and, therefore, are never at peace with themselves or with others. In a speech directed at the Government and given in this House on 24 February 1987, the following words were uttered during the 20-minute speech. I shall read them to honourable members. They are: `Burden, imposed, failure, total inability, serious problems, misled, going broke, no longer, unable, misdoing, errors and inactivity, mistakes, fault, unable to cope, reshuffle, bully boy, wimp, could not, flaws, improprieties, maladministration, policy farce, gloomy future, out in the cold, discord, fell behind, blame, tatty image, lowest, empty rhetoric, economic vandalism, crisis, collapsing, chaos, discarded, out of control, ground down, put under strain, been split, disturbing attempts, opportunity will be lost'. Those words describe the Opposition parties very well in the light of what has happened during the last two weeks. The speech was made by the Leader of the National Party, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) just over one month ago. It is interesting, is it not? Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.21) —I rise in the House tonight to follow, from our side, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who has been speaking of his particular concern about afforestation programs and the support that people for Tasmania are showing for them. I want to take the focus of the house away from Tasmania to the Riverland area of South Australia where the climate is very different from that known to the honourable member for Denison. It is an area in which it is not possible to grow anything without a measure of irrigation. As members of the House would know, in that eight-inch rainfall area and in severe summer temperatures it has been possible to grow something there only with an appropriate and effective irrigation system. Most of the Riverland area has been famous for its focus on horticulture. As a result, many horticultural products are now processed in that area. This processing technique has brought with it its own fair share of problems. Let us take, for example, the Berri fruit juice factory, a co-operative-owned factory and one of the most successful fruit juice factories in Australia. That factory takes the produce of the Riverland orchards and converts it into consumable fruit juice, but in the process it produces a high level of factory effluent. Precisely the same problem of effluent disposal was faced by Mr John Moore, who runs a private factory in the Loxton area. Mr Hollis —Is he a relative of your Mr Moore? Mr ANDREW —I hasten to add, for the information of the honourable member for Throsby, that he is no relative, so far as I am aware, of the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). Mr Moore runs a very successful processing factory in the Loxton area. As a result of running this processing factory, Mr Moore was faced with the dilemma of what to do with the effluent from his factory. To channel that effluent back into the river was only to create a further pollution problem for people downstream, a pollution problem that he may well have inherited from Victorians upstream had they not also followed his example. So Mr Moore chose to purchase 100 acres of dry land on the edge of Loxton and to convert it into a new effluent disposal area and, in fact, invited the Loxton Council to join him in this project. Mr Moore, as a businessman, has now to his credit invested $200,000 in what has been successful effluent disposal. I mentioned when I rose that I was prompted to my feet by comments made by the honourable member for Denison, who talked about the successful conservation of trees. Mr Moore has planted 43,000 trees on this 100 acres. He has given each one an individual dripper and, by successfully filtering the effluent before it is supplied to the tree, he has given that tree the gift of life that it needs in the severe Riverland climate. Mr Moore, with support and advice from a Mr Ted Alexander from Macclesfield in the electorate of the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), has planted in this 100 acres two species of trees-river red gum and river flooded gum. They were chosen, as honourable members would imagine, for their salt tolerance and fast growth. Mr Moore tells me that subsequent trial plantings of other trees on the site have confirmed these trees as the key trees for effective growth using effluent water. Mr Moore has created his own woodlot at Loxton. It is his intention, when these trees have grown to an appropriate commercial height, to make them available for woodlet use. They would then become part of the recyclable energy that we would want to see replace much of the non-renewable energy we currently consume in order to warm themselves over winter. This has been a very successful project because Mr Moore has taken what would have been waste water and polluting the use of the river that downstream users would otherwise have. He has taken Loxton's waste water and converted it into a successful forest project which will obviously not only be to the benefit of all South Australians but, I would hope, will be a project that other Australians can use for the effective disposal of effluent factory and town water. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.26) —It is my wish this evening to address the subject of the Australian Government's support for active economic sanctions against South Africa. I am prompted to do so because I am convinced that our Government's position is most important in hastening the end of the evil crime of apartheid. Indeed, I consider it most important that our Government, in union with other governments, apply increasingly tougher economic sanctions against South Africa until such time as the obdurate minority regime is compelled to dismantle the entire structure of apartheid and, together with the black majority, introduces the democratic process in that country. We recently heard in this House the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) make the extraordinary statement that while in South Africa he `did not meet one white, one black, one coloured person or one Indian who was in favour of Australia's policy on trade sanctions and disinvestment'. Obviously the honourable member did not meet any of the 33 Catholic bishops in Southern Africa. He may be interested to learn, therefore, that in May of last year the entire Catholic hierarchy of Southern Africa, after three days of careful deliberation, came to what they described in their own words as a `decision of conscience' and proclaimed themselves to be in favour of international economic sanctions against South Africa. That decision was released in the form of a solemn pastoral letter to be read from the pulpit of each and every Catholic church in South Africa. Similar calls have, of course, been made by church leaders of other denominations. Furthermore, in this same pastoral letter the Catholic bishops called on the South African Government to release all imprisoned black political leaders, such as Nelson Mandela, and to lift bans on black organisations such as the African National Congress, of which Mandela is the leader. On the question of black support for economic sanctions, I would simply refer the honourable member for Parkes to the results of a thoroughgoing survey conducted last September by Market and Opinion Research International and the South African company, Markinor. This survey was commissioned by the British newspaper, the Sunday Times. The results were published in its issue of Sunday, 3 August 1986. The survey indicated that in urban areas of South Africa, where it would seem the honourable member for Parkes spent considerable time, 47 per cent of blacks favoured sanctions and only 29 per cent were opposed. In the more conservative and less well-informed rural areas the picture is somewhat different. Twenty-two per cent of blacks favoured sanctions and 34 per cent were opposed to them. Of all blacks polled, 36 per cent had never had the opportunity to hear of economic sanctions. Overall, of those who were familiar with what economic sanctions involved, 46 per cent favoured sanctions and 51 per cent were opposed. There is every indication that within another year or so, unless there is some dramatic end to the whole system of apartheid, the majority of blacks will favour sanctions, and just possibly another poll today would find that this had already happened. Another compelling fact to emerge from the survey is that Nelson Mandela, the jailed leader of the ANC, is most clearly the person most favoured by blacks to become the President of South Africa. When asked who would make the best President of South Africa, 44 per cent of blacks favoured Nelson Mandela, 16 per cent favoured Buthelezi and 13 per cent favoured Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Just as significantly, black support for Neslon Mandela in urban areas had in the previous 12 months increased from 49 per cent to 64 per cent-a 30 per cent increase. A survey conducted among white South Africans at the same time revealed another significant fact: More than 50 per cent of the white population of South Africa-in fact, some 56 per cent-favours the release from gaol of Nelson Mandela. Beyond all shadow of doubt there is a change coming in South Africa; just as certainly the winds of change will see the African National Congress, with Nelson Mandela at its head, playing a decisive role in the formulation of South Africa's first democratic government. To believe otherwise is to live in a fantasy world of make believe. The African National Congress has, for the past 28 years, called on the international community to impose economic sanctions against South Africa. Had we and the rest of the world heeded its call at an earlier date, there would have been no Sharpevilles, no Sowetos and no Crossroads. The longer we delay heeding that call today, the more certain we can be that there will be more bloodshed in South Africa. The surest way to minimise and, hopefully, eliminate that bloodshed is to impose even tougher sanctions. I for one do not want it to rest on my head that, by my inaction and ignorance, by my deafness and blindness, I did nothing to avert the bloodshed. I ask all honourable members to consider this most carefully. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.31) —I pose the question: When is a memorandum of understanding not worth the paper on which it is written? The answer is: When one of the parties is the Hawke socialist Government. Tasmanian forest industries have been under threat from this Government since it came into office in 1983. The Government of the State of Tasmania thought it appropriate to negotiate with the Commonwealth, and a memorandum of understanding was signed which clearly stated that, in the opinion of the Commonwealth, Tasmania could go ahead with its forestry operations in certain defined areas of Tasmania. What has happened is that the Commonwealth has torn up that agreement. The Hawke socialist Government has totally and unequivocally reneged on that memorandum of understanding which it entered into with one of the six States of the Commonwealth of Australia. Worse still, the Hawke socialist Government has now legislated to totally abrogate everything in that memorandum of understanding with respect to forest industry operations in Tasmania. Seven thousand Tasmanians earn their living in forestry. Tasmania has the best forestry management in the Commonwealth. Our forestry management has been complimented by experts from around the world. We do not destroy the forests. For every tree that is cut down in Tasmania, two are planted in its place. Some of our forest regeneration is the most beautiful forestry in the entire State. I have publicly advocated that the beauty of the reafforested areas should be recognised by giving them a title somewhat equivalent to the title given many centuries ago in the mother country; namely, the new forests. The plain fact of the matter is that the Hawke socialist Government, bereft of integrity, keen to try to pick up the greenie vote wherever it can in metropolitan trendy seats in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, has reneged on the firm commitment of understanding, the documented memorandum of understanding that it entered into with the State of Tasmania. It has now legislated to lock up 260,000 hectares of Tasmanian sovereign State territory. We see them in Moscow corner laughing their heads off as, once again, they endeavour to trample on Australia's tiniest but most courageous State. Mr Cadman —That is right. Jackboots! Mr HODGMAN —That is right. The legislation put through this House, which has now gone to the Senate, is nothing more nor less than nazi legislation which tramples on the rights of individuals. It is authoritarian and totalitarian legislation. Madam Speaker, what on earth has happened to the clock? Madam SPEAKER —It is all right, I have just fixed the clock. Mr HODGMAN —Is this Canberra or Moscow? Madam SPEAKER —You do not have to speak for much longer. Mr HODGMAN —I take exception. That little red light is like the star of Moscow. I have just about set a world record. I thought I had 4 1/2 minutes to go. It is only a matter of time before we are paid in roubles, we address the chamber in Russian and there is a hammer and sickle over the Chair. I have been completely thrown off my lines. I just say that nazi legislation-- Mr Cunningham —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. I take exception to the terminology being used by the honourable member in referring to anybody in this place adopting a nazi approach or any such approach. I ask that it be withdrawn. Madam SPEAKER —I tend to think that there is no point of order. I found nothing offensive in the remarks. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Madam Speaker. The little star of Moscow still shines as I speak, with seconds remaining. What a pity! Madam SPEAKER —Order! The seconds have gone. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(10.36) —I wish to speak relatively briefly tonight about a matter that causes me great concern. It is a matter that I intend to pursue at some length in the House on future occasions. It concerns the personnel practices of the Department of Defence and the treatment of service personnel and their families in the course of their service life. I pay great tribute to the commitment and the work of the Federal Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) in attempting to reform the Services and to give some dignity, I think for the first time, to service personnel and their families. My concern tonight is to highlight the point that much still needs to be done in the area of personnel practices. I have a great deal to do with service personnel and their families in the course of my work as the Federal member for Hughes. I represent, of course, not only the Holsworthy families, but also service personnel at Heathcote, East Hills and a number of other places throughout my electorate. What I have found is that the practices of the Department of Defence often mean that service personnel are treated as non-citizens and are left without the rights that other people in the community, represented by trade unions, take for granted. One area about which I have a particular concern relates to the practices of the Department of Defence concerning the transfer of service personnel from different parts of Australia. I have had related to me by service personnel and their families concerns about the practices of the Department whereby people are told one week that they are to be moved; they have their personal belongings packed up in boxes ready to go; trucks come to the front door; and then, at the last moment, the service men and women are told that they are not to be shifted. Of course, that results in tremendous dislocation to family life and to the life of the service personnel themselves. Of particular concern is the impact on spouses of servicemen because they find, as a result of these unpredictable initiatives to move them to different parts of Australia, that they are unable to get sustained and continued employment. Often when a soldier's wife seeks a job she is simply told that as she is only potentially a short term employee, she is turned away and simply not given the opportunity to be able to take up a job. I am also concerned about the impact of these maladministration practices on the children of service personnel because they, too, bear the brunt of the practices. Often service personnel, as I have indicated, are told at the last minute that a move will not take place. The children, of course, who have planned their lives to be able to move to a new school, perhaps to a new State, are told at the last minute that the move will not take place. One can imagine the trauma that they must face as a result of the cancelled move. The Federal Government, as I have indicated, through the Minister for Defence and the initiation of the Hamilton Review of Effect of Service Life on Spouses has introduced vast improvements to the quality of life of service personnel but much more needs to be done. One initiative that Government members have taken is to establish the Government Members Defence Force Action Committee to try to initiate further moves for reform within the Government. Mr Hollis —Who is the Chairman of it? Mr TICKNER —I thank the honourable member for that interjection; I am one of the co-convenors, but many members of the Government are active on this Committee. The Committee seeks to draw to the attention of the Minister for Defence and the Parliament as a whole the appalling conditions in which service men and women are often forced to serve. That, of course, is no fault of this Government but really is the result of decades of neglect by Parliament as a whole. In the coming months and year we will be seeking to redress those years of neglect and to deliver some justice to service personnel and their families. Mr Hodgman —Madam Speaker-- Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Denison, having spoken twice in the adjournment debate, is not entitled to speak a third time. Mr Hodgman —Thank you, Madam Speaker. I accept your ruling. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.41) —One of our colleagues in the Parliament this evening has raised the problems of South Africa and I want to draw to the attention of the House some of the problems that intending visitors to Australia have under the Government's policy. It goes back to the Hobart decisions of the Australian Labor Party, and in part the Hobart Conference decided: . . . review of all immigration procedures applying to South Africa, with the exception of those under the Special Humanitarian Programme, in an effort to avoid any significant inflow of people with marked racist attitudes . . . That was followed by ministerial statements, by a prime ministerial statement and a policy statement by the then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. A summary of policy contained in the Press release is: Exceptions would by made only in `compassionate, humanitarian and national interest circumstances'; South African citizens and residents and those visiting South Africa who wish to visit Australia would need to apply for visas at posts outside South Africa; permanent settlement applications to continue to be processed in South Africa; and Government had decided to enhance the special humanitarian program in relation to South Africa. This is causing a great deal of trauma for Australians with relatives in South Africa. I would like to bring to the attention of the House the circumstances of three or four cases. The first one relates to friends who had made contact through Rotary International on a yearly basis and decided to visit each other's country. It is not a formal Rotary process, but it is an informal friendship relationship established through Rotary. Advice from the Department of Ethnic Affairs indicated that there was a 29-week wait for visas, that is a seven months wait for the details of travel which have been planned perhaps two years ahead. Another case: A Jewish family seeking to visit Australia to spend their Passover with family and relatives here applied well in advance of the time they wished to travel, in their view, on 9 December 1986. They wanted to depart on 9 April 1987. They have been told that there will be no inquiries, and no cables sent unless it is a life and death matter. In my view those two cases are compassionate cases of people seeking to do things right outside any prospect of any racist or apartheid attitude. Mr Cohen —Have you raised it with the Minister? Mr CADMAN —Yes, on many occasions. Mr Cohen —These two cases? Mr CADMAN —These two cases-and I have a list of seven cases. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young) should know that my colleagues are constantly in touch with me saying that they have circumstances which are similar to that. The process is that applicants for visas to visit Australia are sent to Harare. They are interviewed and the documents are sent back to Pretoria for processing. It is a crazy system that the Government has adopted. It is not affecting the apartheid policies of the South African Government. All it is doing is inconveniencing people, most of whom would not support the apartheid Government of South Africa. Another case that I wish to bring to honourable members' attention relates to the parents of an Australian resident who applied for a visa in Capetown. They heard nothing for four months, so they decided to continue their world trip and visit to the United Kingdom. They got a knockback in London, but happened to visit Edinburgh, where their application was processed in 10 minutes. So much for the Minister's comments today that no instruction had gone out. It would be my view that Edinburgh was one of the places that had not received an instruction on deliberately delaying the processing of visitor visa applications and that it was processed in normal time. I bring to the Government's attention this needless inconvenience to decent people who are just seeking to take advantage of visiting friends and relatives in Australia. By any measure of compassion, under the Government's own policy these matters should be expedited. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(10.46) —I wish to raise a matter relating to an article that appeared on today's Age headed `Rising interest rates bring desperation down on the farm: Coming to terms with a human dilemma'. The article is by Deirdre Macken and relates to a Forbes farmer, Mr Roger Maloney, whom we saw Australia-wide on television evicted from his farm a couple of weeks ago. I quote from the article: By the time the television crews arrived at Roger Maloney's farm in Forbes, Mr Maloney had not made a payment on his mortgage for four years, he had not made a deposit at his bank for 18 months and had not been living on the farm for five months. The morning the television crews arrived, Mr Maloney returned to his farm. He took his children out of school and told police that he should be evicted. The cameras rolled, and another farmer and his distraught family were turfed off their property by an uncaring banker. With the bankers knocking at the farmers' doors, the Maloney case became the pivot of media attention on the crisis in the bush. The downtrodden farmer with his family in tow provided the graphics for a complex story of financial ruin. The article continues: The impression generated by the Maloney case is as phoney as the eviction, because for every Maloney there are hundreds of broke farmers who will not be evicted-they will work their farms for the next few years until prices improve and their farms become an economic proposition. . . . . Banks hate panic as much as the media loves it. So, although grain producers are going through a crisis from which one-in-four will never recover, banks are loath to call in the sheriff in all but the most hopeless cases. As a farmer myself and one who has been actively moving around Australia in the last 18 months, talking with the farm community and farmers in relation to problems in the wheat area, I get hostile when I see a situation that has been developed solely for the media in this way. A farmer who has not made a payment on his mortgage for four years, who has not made a deposit in the bank for 18 months, and who has not been living on the farm for five months can hardly be typified as a normal farm operation Australia-wide. He even took the opportunity of going back to the farm just for the cameras. He took his children out of school, as I saw on television, his wife was dragged from the front porch of the house and the children were crying. It was a very poor performance on the part of the organisers who set this up in order to create a crisis in the minds of city people. It is an irresponsible approach to these matters. The banks have a problem of enormous proportions with land values around Australia collapsing, and I shall keep repeating this point as long as I need to do so so that the people of Australia come to realise that this type of approach does the rural sector no good. Thousands and thousands of farmers and their families around Australia would cringe at the knowledge that they were being portrayed as managers of this type, because it is certainly not true of the great bulk of Australian farmers. It is certainly not true of the great bulk of Australian families who live in rural Australia that this sort of thing should take place. It is time that those who peddle this type of information and who use the media in this way for sensational stories took a more responsible approach. It is only in the last three or four weeks that we have seen at last the crisis that has been portrayed being looked at responsibly by some people in the rural sector. Negotiations are now taking place between these farmers and the banks for schemes of arrangement to be put in place, where the value of the farmers' equity has slipped out from underneath them. We do not need this sensationalised approach of using families in this way to overcome what is a major problem for a very small minority of people. Those responsible for it ought to be ashamed of themselves and those who peddle it in this House as part of an operation to try to discredit this Government ought to be ashamed of themselves as well. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.50) —We have just heard a speech from the so-called leader of the Government's rural expert committee, the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham). For 12 months this committee has been travelling around Australia and has produced nothing to support the farmers. Tonight we heard an apology for people facing the threat of being thrown off their blocks of land. Let us examine the situation. We are looking at farm families, most of whom are recent arrivals on the land; mainly younger people who have bought into the land over the past 10 to 15 years. We are not talking about established families who are long term residents of farming properties; we are thinking and talking of people who have recently arrived on the land and have outlaid against their future to borrow money to establish themselves in a rural property. Government members claim that they have a sympathy for this sort of person. Nothing could be further from the truth. For 12 months they have battled to persuade the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) that something should be done. The Government is talking now about negotiations and discussions. What good are they? Farmers want some results and relief from the terrible burdens that they are facing. With full credit to the Premier of Queensland, a 25 per cent tax rate means nothing to people who are not even making profits. Australia needs to see that there is relief from the overwhelming interest rates that these new arrivals on the land are facing. They are facing interest rates ranging up to 22 1/2 per cent with hire purchase companies. Mr Slipper —How much? Mr CADMAN —They are paying 22 1/2 per cent for farm equipment and machinery. How can farmers possibly earn any return on farm equipment and machinery if they are forced to pay 22 1/2 per cent on the money they have laid out to continue their farming practices? As members of the Government know, these decisions were based upon sound premises; sound decisions which could have been made in the period of the Fraser Government when there was stability and a predictable future. Come the change of government, we have instability and an unpredictable future. The Government seeks to blame all of its problems on overseas prices. It needs to examine its economic policies that have forced these circumstances on the farmers of Australia. Most of the people are younger farmers. For goodness sake, the members of the Government know that the average age of farmers today is 56 years. How are we to generate the expertise and knowledge to replace these people in our great export industries? We will not do it unless they are given opportunities. The Opposition has been saying day after day that the Government is uncaring, unthinking and uninformed about the plight of farmers. The people who will be partly responsible for leading Australia out of its present world trade situation dire circumstances, if Australia is to succeed, are the farmers. If Australia is to succeed the farmers and small businessmen must succeed. Both of these sections of the community are suffering at the hands of the Australian Labor Party. I do not know how the Government can explain to farmers not only that the medicine it has dished out to them is good for them but also that they will benefit in the long term, because nothing could be further from the truth. We are seeing record bankruptcies right across Australia's business and farming communities. Last year was record breaking for bankruptcies and this year there will be a 35 per cent increase in small business and farming bankruptcies. The Government should not be proud of that record, and should not be seeking to explain it away in the facile way in which the honourable member for McMillan has sought to do. He ought to know better, and he has a responsibility that indicates that he ought to be able to produce results. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GEAR(Canning)(10.55) —If I have one piece of advice for the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) it is that he should keep his mouth shut and just let us think he is a fool rather than open it up and confirm that he is. He has given us tonight one of the greatest diatribes of absolute drivel that we have ever heard. If he ever cared to check his facts-he never has, which is obvious from his speech-he would know that as a result of his so-called free enterprise captains of industry government this country is on its knees. The reason it is on its knees is that his Government, or his style of government, adopted a policy of protectionism that has sent this country broke. Those opposite never knew how to run a country, how to run a government, and that is made evident by the fact that they have not come up with any policies in four years. We are still waiting for their taxation policy, their industrial policy, their communications policy and every other policy. Their industrial relations policy was such a sham that the Confederation of Australian Industry threw it out the door. It was supposed to be a mate of the Opposition's. Yet the honourable member for Mitchell has stood up here trying to tell us how to run a government. Those opposite really are a bunch of fools. Outside of this place people see them as such because they have never done the hard things in government. Tonight I was at an Australia-Japan symposium. It always impresses me that when we compare ourselves, a mineral rich country, a country of great natural wealth, with a country such as Japan we always come off a distant second. The reason is that we had fools like those opposite running the country. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will moderate his language. Mr GEAR —Thank you for your guidance, Madam Speaker. I will moderate my language. Mr Slipper —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order. The honourable member for Canning ought not refer to the shadow Minister at the table as a fool. I take exception to that comment and I ask him to withdraw it. Madam SPEAKER —I have just asked the honourable member to moderate his language, and the honourable member has accepted my advice. Mr GEAR —Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was talking in general terms. They never ever gave the Australian people the credence they should have. The Australian people are smart people. They are people, given the right leadership, who can lead this country out of the mess that it is in. We had absolute fools running this country for 30 years. They sold us down the drain, and the speech we just heard from the honourable member for Mitchell, who is at the table, epitomises that performance. We have never reached the heights that we could have. Members of the Opposition stand up here and talk about small business. The greatest failure of small business is in Queensland. Honourable members should go out tomorrow and check the facts. The greatest percentage of small business failures is in Queensland, under a so-called free enterprise government-a regime that those opposite would support, that they would endorse. They have never done the hard things in government; they have always sold us short. This Government has taken the hard decisions. We do not like having high interest rates, but that is to support the Australian dollar because of their failures. In 1987 we are still sending rocks, wheat and wool overseas-the same as we did 50 years ago. A fool like the honourable member-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Canning will not refer to the honourable member at the table as a fool. Mr GEAR —I am sorry, Madam Speaker. Sometimes I am tempted. The fact is that the incompetents that the honourable member supports have always gone for the bottom line. They have never looked past their shoestrings; they have never lifted their vision. The fact is that it is up to this Government to make sure that the taxation policies, the industrial policies and everything else that is necessary for good government and the economy in this country are put in place. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr Cohen —Madam Speaker, I require the debate to be extended. Madam SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 11.10 p.m. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(11.00) —I would like to reply very briefly to the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). I have some sympathy for the cases that he raised. I certainly will refer the matter to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Young). I have had similar cases myself. In one recently a Jewish grandmother wanted to come to Australia for her grandson's bar mitzvah. There is no question that it was a humane case. I contacted the Minister's office immediately. I was very pleased to find out that within a very short period cables were sent and she was able to get here with 48 hours to spare to attend the bar mitzvah on the north shore of Sydney. A similar case happened with my aunt. My family on my father's side is of South African background. My father was born in South Africa and I have a lot of relations there. My aunt wanted to come here. Her sole remaining brother in Australia was very ill. Again, this matter was able to be fixed up within a matter of days. The honourable member has raised a matter of concern to a lot of people. I hope that people with genuine humane cases are not being stopped from coming to this country and that the wrong people are not being punished. I strongly support the Government in making things as hard as possible on this question because I think we have to put pressure on the South African people and even sometimes, unfortunately, on those people who are not necessarily supporters of apartheid. I will make sure that the matter goes before the Minister. I certainly understand that the honourable member has raised the matter in a sensitive way. I was going to reply to the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). Unfortunately, he makes a ranting, raving exhibition of himself in this House. Talk about nazism and Moscow corner and that sort of gibberish-that is about all I can refer to it as-debases debate in this Parliament. Anybody who knows my background would understand that I find it thoroughly objectionable in any way, shape or form to be linked with the word `nazi'. I have told the honourable member this on many occasions. If he wants to argue or debate, to abuse Government members or to oppose legislation, of course he has every right to do so; but the sort of language that he uses debases debate and debases the Parliament. It does him no credit. No wonder he has the reputation for being the crown fool of the Australian Parliament. Madam SPEAKER —The debate being concluded, the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11.03 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Howe to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act relating to social security. Mr Holding to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act to provide for the vesting in certain Aboriginal communities of certain land at Lake Condah and Framlingham owned by the State of Victoria, and for related purposes. Mr Holding to present at the next sitting a Bill for an Act to amend the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 to make certain provision for the preservation of the Aboriginal cultural heritage in Victoria, and for related purposes. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 24 March 1987: Defence Act-Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal-Determination-1987-No. 2. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 3968) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 8 May 1986: (1) Has he received advice pursuant to section 30 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act concerning Tasmanian woodchip export licences. (2) What was the context of that advice in relation to the Lemonthyme State Forest and the forest south of Farmhouse Creek in South-West Tasmania. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Advice from the Australian Heritage Commission (AHC) dated 13 December 1985 referred to action which I had proposed in relation to negotiation of an agreement with the Tasmanian Government on woodchip export licences to be issued subject to certain conditions, including negotiation of the agreement. That advice referred to earlier (15 November 1985) correspondence from the AHC in which the Commission gave the following advice in relation to four national estate places which include Lemonthyme State Forest and the forest south of Farmhouse Creek in South-west Tasmania. ``Without detailed information on the proposed operations within these four areas, the Commission is unable to provide recommendations on the resolution of the conflict. However, the Commission has closely examined each of the four places and concluded that forestry operations could occur within parts of them, without adversely affecting their national estate significance, provided conditions are placed on the nature of these operations. These conditions will need to be set following discussions with the Tasmanian Forestry Commission. Until meaningful discussions can occur, and agreement is reached over the conflict areas, the Commission cannot support any logging in these areas. This highlights the need for mechanisms to be put in place for ongoing consultative and conflict resolution''. The 13 December advice reiterated the Commission's support for consultative arrangements of the sort proposed. A consultative process, specifically to ensure that national estate values are protected in forest management planning by the Tasmanian Forestry Commission, was subsequently agreed with the Tasmanian Government and embodied in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed on 12 June 1986. However, in relation to my proposal that licences be issued, the 13 December advice put the view that certain areas, including the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (which include Farmhouse Creek), should be excluded from logging operations due to their wilderness value. The AHC further recommended that a decision not be taken on the Lemonthyme at that stage and that it be given priority consideration under the consultative arrangements. It also recommended that forestry operations be excluded from the wilderness and primitive areas of concession areas within South West Tasmania (which includes Farmhouse Creek). On 26 February 1987, the Government introduced legislation, relating to the Lemonthyme and Southern Forest areas, to establish a Commission of Inquiry to review the possible World Heritage properties of those areas. The Inquiry will also determine whether there are prudent and feasible alternatives to logging in areas found to have, or contribute to, World Heritage values. (Question No. 4793) Mr Porter asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 17 October 1986: (1) What is delaying the transfer of nursing education to tertiary institutions. (2) Will the transfer proceed in 1986-87. (3) What is the estimated number of nursing students who will be involved in the transfer in each State. (4) How was the 1985 disagreement between the Commonwealth and the States over capital funding resolved. (5) Why was the Parliament asked to appropriate funds for the purposes of the transfer in 1985-86. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honour- able member's question is as follows: (1), (2) and (4) The transfer of basic nurse education to tertiary institutions is well under way or planned for commencement by 1988 in all States and Territories with the exception of Queensland. Agreements finalising the transfer arrangements have been signed with Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and Northern Territory. Unlike the other States, the Queensland Government has insisted that the Commonwealth should meet the full cost of the transfer from hospitals to CAEs, including capital costs. (3) The estimated number of general nursing student places involved in the transfer (based on 1983 training levels) is as follows: New South Wales...6,800 Victoria...4,380 Queensland...3,170 South Australia...1,720 Western Australia...1,140 Tasmania...530 Northern Territory...70 Australian Capital Territory...200 (5) The transfer is being phased-in over the period 1985-1993, with Commonwealth recurrent assistance being available in respect of 1,000 places in 1985 and 2,700 places in 1986. Parliament was asked to appropriate $2.8m in 1985-86, reflecting the States' and Territories' entitlements for that period under the terms of Commonwealth assistance for the transfer. Due to delays in finalising inter-government agreement on the transfer, no payments were made in respect of 1985-86 and funds have been carried over into the current financial year. (Question No. 4994) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 17 February: (1) What sums were provided by the Government to (a) United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, (b) World Health Organisation, (c) United Nations Children's Fund and (d) United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organisation in all aid categories each year since 1980-81. (2) What did these sums represent as a percentage of the total Australian foreign aid budget for each year for each organisation. (3) How many dollars did those amounts represent per head of the Australian population each year for each organisation. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The sums provided by the Government in all aid categories to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), World Health Organisation (WHO), United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) for each year since 1980-81 are as follows: $A 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 UNHCR... 11,932,000 14,523,000 17,203,000 7,358,000 16,856,000 WHO... 3,978,000 4,755,000 4,681,000 5,075,000 5,562,000 UNICEF... 6,200,000 10,870,000 6,060,000 6,073,000 6,200,000 UNESCO... 90,000 294,000 192,000 285,000 157,000 (2) The percentage of the total Australian foreign aid budget for each year for each organisation was: OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE (ODA) $A 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 657,790,000 744,620,000 833,168,000 1,011,403,000 1,030,964,000 % of ODA % of ODA % of ODA % of ODA % of ODA UNHCR... 1.81 1.95 2.06 0.73 1.63 WHO... 0.60 0.64 0.56 0.50 0.54 UNICEF... 0.94 1.46 0.73 0.60 0.60 UNESCO... 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.02 (3) The amount in dollars that these amounts represented per head of the Australian population each year for each organisation was: AUSTRALIAN POPULATION1 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 15,178,400 15,378,600 15,555,900 15,728,400 15,973,900 $/Head $/Head $/Head $/Head $/Head UNHCR... 0.79 0.94 1.11 0.47 1.06 WHO... 0.26 0.31 0.30 0.32 0.35 UNICEF... 0.41 0.71 0.39 0.39 0.39 UNESCO... 0.006 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.001 1 ``Estimated Resident Population'', Monthly Summary of Statistics, Australian Bureau of Statistics, January 1987, p.1. (Question No. 5058) Mr Conquest asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 18 February 1987: (1) Are the recommendations of the Report of the Inquiry into the Distribution of Federal Roads Grants (Cameron Inquiry) dealing with revised principles for allocating grants based on a weighted combination of traffic volume indicators covering a range of complicated issues yet to be thoroughly tested against reliable data. (2) Did the Cameron Inquiry acknowledge deficiencies in current roads database and computer modelling resources. (3) Will he (a) defer consideration of the Cameron Inquiry recommendations for 1 year to enable the State road authorities and his Department to investigate fully and report on their data needs and (b) extend the current Australian Land Transport Program percentage distributions until 1988-89. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Cameron Report's recommendations for the allocation of funding under the Australian Land Transport Program (ALTP) are based on four indicators of road funding requirements that relate to traffic volume and road length. They are: axle loading, road occupancy, restoration and upgrading. These terms are described fully in the Report. The indicators are weighted in accordance with the Committee's view that Federal funding should cater for both restoration and upgrading needs in approximately equal proportions. The Inquiry also recommended that the Federal Government should undertake a periodic review of data sources, and the weighting applied to the indicators in the light of Federal objectives. In making this recommendation the Report makes a number of suggestions for collection and improvement of the data. Difficulties with data encountered by the Committee of Inquiry and the methods used to overcome them are fully documented in its Report. Where appropriate the Committee also conducted sensitivity tests to ensure that its conclusions were soundly based. I am not aware that the Committee had any problem with computer modelling resources. (3) (a) and (b) Section 19 of the Australian Land Transport (Financial Assistance) Act requires the Minister for Transport to make a determination on the distribution of the unallocated 5.236 percentage points of ALTP funding for the period 1987-88 to 1989-90 inclusive by 31 March 1987. It therefore has not been possible to defer consideration of the Report's recommendations for one year.